assessment and continuous planning: the key to transformation at the university of texas libraries
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Lancaster University Library]On: 30 October 2014, At: 13:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Library AdministrationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjla20
Assessment and Continuous Planning:The Key to Transformation at theUniversity of Texas LibrariesMeredith Taylor a & Fred Heath aa University of Texas Libraries, University of Texas at Austin ,Austin , TX , USAPublished online: 20 Aug 2012.
To cite this article: Meredith Taylor & Fred Heath (2012) Assessment and Continuous Planning: TheKey to Transformation at the University of Texas Libraries, Journal of Library Administration, 52:5,424-435, DOI: 10.1080/01930826.2012.700798
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2012.700798
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Library Administration, 52:424–435, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0193-0826 print / 1540-3564 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01930826.2012.700798
Assessment and Continuous Planning:The Key to Transformation at the University
of Texas Libraries
MEREDITH TAYLOR and FRED HEATHUniversity of Texas Libraries, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
ABSTRACT. Academic libraries are under continued pressure toprovide quality services and resources in support of the educa-tional needs of their institutions while experiencing shrinking bud-gets and calls for greater accountability. Since 2010, the Universityof Texas at Austin Libraries (“UT Libraries”) has been embeddingin its organization a data-driven and data-supported continuousplanning process that utilizes the Balanced Scorecard. The col-lection and analysis of assessment and performance data havebeen integrated into both the planning and evaluation phases ofits strategy development. This article will provide a case study ofhow UT Libraries is employing assessment activities and continuousplanning to transform itself through increased accountability andtransparency, while empowering all staff to participate in chartingthe future of the organization.
KEYWORDS strategic planning, continuous planning, BalancedScorecard, assessment, University of Texas Libraries
INTRODUCTION
It is a challenging time for colleges and universities in the United States.Our current higher education model is being called into question as con-cerns over cost, quality, and viability are increasingly eroding the notion of
Portions of this article are from the previous case study by Meredith Taylor, “StrategyDevelopment at the University of Texas Utilizing the Balanced Scorecard” (presentation,9th Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries andInformation Services, York, UK, August 22–26, 2011).
Address correspondence to Meredith Taylor, University of Texas Libraries, Univer-sity of Texas at Austin, 101 E. 21st St., Austin, TX 78712, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
424
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Assessment and Continuous Planning 425
a postsecondary education as a public good. Four-year public and privateinstitutions are experiencing increased competition from the for-profit andtwo year sectors, falling revenues, decreasing state support in the publicsector, and increased pressures for accountability and productivity (Leder-man, 2010; Pulley, 2003; Wood, Miller, & Knapp, 2007). In the face of theseunprecedented challenges, every organization within each institution is un-der scrutiny, and every organization is searching for ways to deliver betterservices with reduced budgets.
This paper will present a case study of the continuous planning processthat the University of Texas at Austin Libraries (“UT Libraries”) has beenimplementing since September 2010. The case study will provide informa-tion on the catalysts for our strategic planning in 2010, the development ofour strategy, how assessment is being utilized in our planning process, howstrategic planning evolved into continuous planning, and the organizationallessons learned. Our organization started its planning activities with strategicplanning, but our efforts have morphed into a continuous planning frame-work (Taylor, 2011). Our organization is working hard at embedding thiscontinuous planning framework into our core functional culture; we believethat the framework supports our strategic priorities, facilitates operationalmanagement and increases accountability and transparency, all while em-powering our staff to participate in charting the future of the organization.UT Libraries serves more than 51,000 undergraduate and graduate studentsand over 3,000 faculty members with its eleven campus libraries located atthe University of Texas flagship campus in Austin. Certainly, the implemen-tation of this new, mission-critical initiative has created unique challengeswithin our organization.
CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
Like the higher education environments of which they are a part, academiclibraries are also operating in a time of great change, working amid reducedbudgets and resources and calls for greater accountability. As organizationswithin the larger higher education context, academic libraries experience thebroader challenges and pressures placed upon the institution as a whole, aswell as the unique challenges associated with the management of librariesand information in a changing environment. What it means to be an aca-demic library is evolving in the new world of digital technologies, changingpublishing models, evolving educational pedagogy, and increasingly diversestudents and faculty with different needs. For some, this evolution and trans-formation calls into question the centrality of academic libraries; are they stillthe heart of the university? It also invites an examination of their relevance;can you have a university without an academic library? In the Associationof College and Research Libraries report 2010 Top Ten Trends in Academic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
426 M. Taylor and F. Heath
Libraries: A Review of the Current Literature, four of the ten trends identi-fied were related to the changing landscape, resource issues, and calls foraccountability. The report concluded that “changes in higher education willrequire that librarians possess diverse skill sets; increased collaboration willexpand the role of the library within the institution and beyond; budgetchallenges will continue and libraries will evolve as a result; demands for ac-countability and assessment will increase” (ACRL, 2010). During these timesof uncertainty and transition, continuous planning has become even moreimportant for the future success of our academic libraries.
STRATEGIC AND CONTINUOUS PLANNING
Strategic planning is the process through which an organization charts itsfuture course. A strategic plan “consists of an organization’s mission state-ment, strategic vision, near-term and long-term performance targets, and thestrategies that will be employed to achieve the vision’s goals and objectives”(Matthews, 2005, p. 57).
Strategic planning gained prominence as an organizational management,development and budgeting tool, primarily in businesses and corporations,after World War II (Birdsall, n.d.). In the late 1970s, following sector-widefunding crises, college and university leaders started utilizing strategic plan-ning methodologies within their higher education institutions (Birdsall, n.d.).Strategic planning made its way into the academic library community in 1981when the Association of College and Research Libraries utilized it as part ofits mission and vision (Brown & Gonzalez, 2007). In 1995, an Association ofResearch Libraries survey found that 47 of 69 member libraries respondents(out of a total of 119 ARL member libraries) indicated that they had writtena strategic plan between 1989 and 1994 (Brown & Gonzalez, 2007).
According to Matthews (2005) most organizations conduct strategic plan-ning as a periodic formal process, resulting in the creation of a strategicplanning document which is rarely used to inform ongoing management oroperational decisions. Instead of the periodic and formal model of strategicplanning, Matthews recommends that libraries adopt a model of systematicand continuous planning, resulting in a structured and deliberate processthat is employed on a continuous basis.
CATALYSTS FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING AT UT LIBRARIES
UT Libraries had undertaken strategic planning before, as recently as 2007when the executive management team established priorities and set goals for2008 through 2010. In 2010, our organization began implementing a com-prehensive strategic planning process utilizing the Balanced Scorecard. The
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Assessment and Continuous Planning 427
strategic planning process was undertaken for numerous reasons includinguniversity-wide budget reductions, an institutional mandate for a five-yearbudget plan, a decrease in the number of staff, and the results of an internalsurvey indicating the existence of some climate issues within the organiza-tion.
Between fiscal years 2010 and 2011, a state financial crisis resulted intwo university-wide budget rescissions totaling 7.5%. In addition, during the2011 legislative session, state lawmakers further reduced the University ofTexas at Austin’s overall budget by about 15% for the 2011–2013 biennium.As a result of the budget rescissions, reductions, and general future fiscaluncertainty, the university put in place a new requirement that all campusunits create a five year budget plan. UT Libraries felt that, given the fiscalplanning being undertaken at the campus level, it would be wise to renewour strategic planning efforts.
In order to fund the rescissions and prepare for the budget reductionin the 2011–2013 biennium, the size of the staff of the UT Libraries wasreduced by 21% through retirements and attrition. This staff reduction madeit an organizational necessity to undergo a planning exercise in order todefine our goals and priorities; we needed to ensure that moving forwardwe were optimizing the skills and energies of our reduced staff.
Another motivating factor for undertaking the strategic planning pro-cess was the survey results we received after administering the Associationof Research Libraries’ (ARL) ClimateQUAL survey in the spring of 2010. Cli-mateQUAL is an organizational climate survey that assesses organizationalcommitment to the principles of diversity, organizational policies and pro-cedures, and staff attitudes (ARL, n.d.). The results from the survey indi-cated that our staff felt our organization needed to improve in the areasof strategic planning, distributive justice (distribution of rewards within theorganization), informational justice (communication and transparency), pro-cedural justice (fairness of, and consistent application of, procedures), andfacilitation of teamwork across the organization.
ASSESSMENT DATA AND STRATEGIC PLANNING
From the beginning, assessment data was integrated into the strategic plan-ning process in order to facilitate making data-driven decisions. Some of thedata used in the planning process was pre-existing assessment data aboutour customers and our staff, but we also sought to situate our planningwithin the larger contexts of both our institution and the state of Texas, andas a result we created new data sources. We hoped that considering thebroader contexts in which our organization operated would help us to fullyunderstand Texas’ fiscal situation, the status of higher education in our state,and the climate of the University of Texas at Austin. The data we created
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
428 M. Taylor and F. Heath
was in the form of an environmental scan of the University produced by theStrategic Planning Task Force (“Task Force”) and a white paper authored bythe Vice Provost/Director of the Libraries, Dr. Fred Heath, which examinedhigher education in the state of Texas.
Learning more about our customers involved reviewing numerous yearsof LibQUAL+ data (UT Libraries has administered the survey six times since2003), focusing on gaps and trends. In general, our LibQUAL+ data had beenrelatively stable over the six administrations, so the 2010 results confirmedprevious trends, but we also saw some new and interesting data points.For undergraduate students we saw an increased prioritization of library asplace and continued prioritization of remote access, reaffirming to us thatundergraduates value both our physical and virtual spaces. For our graduatestudents and faculty the results indicated their continued prioritization onresources they need for their work and ease of access to those resources.The new data point that appeared for all three user groups was the result of anew local question we added to the survey. Up until the 2010 administrationwe had been using the same local questions for quite a few years, but wedecided to add the local question of “Enabling me to find information myself24 hours a day.” We added this question because although the survey hasquestions about access to collections (ease of use and remote access) we feltthis local question effectively represented the concept of enabling users tobe independent researchers whenever and wherever they wanted, therebyusing the library on their own terms. Out of the 27 LibQUAL+ questions thatappeared on the survey, our undergraduates rated this question their fifthpriority; for graduate student respondents it was their fourth priority and forfaculty it was their first priority.
Data about our staff came from four sources: the results of the Climate-QUAL survey, operating statements that included budget, services, and staffFTEs for all units, a new online feedback management tool called Idea In-former that we launched in order to get staff opinions (both attributed andanonymous), and written comment cards distributed throughout the organi-zation. The most substantive data we received were from the ClimateQUALsurvey and the emergent areas we saw from this data included: (a) a need toarticulate a vision for the organization, and to align goals, priorities and or-ganizational decisions to that vision (strategic planning), (b) concerns aboutperceived salary and workload inequities across the organization and a de-sire to have performance evaluations do a better job of linking workloadand merit to compensation (related to the distributive justice scale), (c) fa-cilitation of teamwork and better communication across divisions (relatedto the structural facilitation of teamwork scale), (d) an increase in inclu-sion, communication, and transparency (related to the informational justicescale), and (e) more effective and consistent evaluations across the divisionsand more opportunities for managerial and leadership training (related tothe procedural justice scale).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Assessment and Continuous Planning 429
THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR STRATEGY
In September of 2010, a seventeen member Task Force was formed to un-dertake the strategic planning process. The members were selected by theexecutive administrative team and represented five of the six divisions inthe library. The membership included both professional librarians and non-exempt employees. Twelve managers and staff and five administrative mem-bers comprised the Task Force, including the Director/Vice Provost of UTLibraries. The selection of staff at different levels, and from across the organi-zation, was purposefully done so that the Task Force would be representativeof viewpoints throughout the organization, enabling administration to hearfrom all staff while being more inclusive in its decision making. In mid-2011the Task Force needed to add new members as some members left thegroup after a year of service. In order to be even more inclusive during thereconstitution of the group we solicited for volunteers from the entire staff,rather than appointing members, as we did for the first round. The TaskForce currently stands at sixteen members, ten managers and staff and sixadministrative members.
Early in the strategic planning process the group had to choose a strate-gic management tool to use for the development and deployment of strategywithin our organization. We reviewed many of the strategic tools available,but we decided on the Balanced Scorecard for three important reasons: theevaluative nature of the Balanced Scorecard, the endorsement of the Bal-anced Scorecard by the University of Texas at Austin’s executive academicteam, and the fact that a cohort of other ARL libraries were using it.
The Balanced Scorecard, by its nature, is an evaluative strategic manage-ment tool which facilitates measuring the implementation of organizationalstrategy. Embracing a culture of assessment within our organization meantemploying a tool that enabled us to make data-driven evaluations of theoutcomes of our strategy. Another selling point for the Balanced Scorecardwas the fact that The University of Texas at Austin’s executive academic teamhad previously promoted the use of the Balanced Scorecard on campus andthe Task Force felt it was very important to select a tool that was under-stood and valued outside the library, so that the UT Libraries could utilizeit effectively to share its strategic vision. Additionally, ARL had convened aBalanced Scorecard Cohort and although UT Libraries was not part of thatcohort, the Task Force recognized the value of having access to a communityof users at peer research libraries.
As part of our strategy development we revised our mission and visionstatements to better align with the university’s mission, vision, and goals.As the University of Texas aspires to become the premier public researchuniversity in the nation, we wanted to express the Libraries’ own resolutionto enable that goal. Our library mission statement declares: The Universityof Texas Libraries, as a research library of the first tier, advances teaching,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
430 M. Taylor and F. Heath
learning, and research excellence by providing expansive collections andinnovative services to support critical inquiry and knowledge creation forthe benefit of society. In addition, our new vision statement forcefully statesthat The University of Texas Libraries will be the preeminent public univer-sity library, facilitating information discovery, creativity, and innovation toadvance research and the pursuit of critical thinking to transform lives andchange the world.
In December 2010 we hired a consultant to facilitate a strategic develop-ment session which involved a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportuni-ties, and Threats) analysis, and the creation of a strategy map. The assessmentdata previously identified were the sources mined when we conducted theSWOT analysis. The analysis of the data resulted in approximately 250 datapoints that the Task Force used to identify our 14 strategic objectives, whichwere organized in four perspectives (customer, financial, process, learningand growth) on the strategy map.
Customer. The three objectives for the customer perspective included(1) Be Integral Component of University Success, (2) Raise User Satisfaction,and (3) Enhance Library Relevance. These objectives speak to the need forour library, like other academic libraries, to show our value to our institution.They speak as well to our commitment to customer satisfaction.
Financial. The financial perspective included three objectives: (4) Man-age Budget, (5) Increase Revenue, and (6) Reduce Operational Costs (whichwas added after a follow up planning session in August 2011). These ob-jectives demonstrate our attention to the university-wide budget constraintsunder which we are operating, and our desire to reduce our operationalcosts while seeking new and innovative ways to raise revenue.
Process. The four objectives identified in the process perspective were(7) Realign Services to Users, (8) Revise Collections Priorities, (9) OptimizeFacilities, and (10) Improve Discovery and Access to Resources. These ob-jectives in the process dimension show our dedication to improving thediscovery process by deploying new technologies and tools to ensure betteraccess to the vast array of resources we make available. We are also workingto ensure that our services are closely aligned with the needs and expecta-tions of users, as captured in the LibQUAL+ survey and other instruments.We aim to optimize our facilities to best fit user needs and behaviors, and wewill revisit our collection practices to affirm that our priorities and practicesalign with the information-seeking behaviors of students and faculty at oneof the world’s greatest research universities.
Learning and Growth. The learning and growth perspective containedfour objectives including (11) Define and Adhere to Priorities, (12) Standard-ize Personnel Procedures, (13) Improve Communication and Staff Inclusion,and (14) Realign and Develop Staff. The objectives identified in this domaindemonstrate that organizational development is a strong and foundationalelement of our strategic plan. One of these objectives is an organization-wide
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Assessment and Continuous Planning 431
understanding of, and adherence to, priorities in order to support our con-tinuous planning efforts. We also want all of our staff to expect and toreceive the same treatments, and we expect that our personnel policies willcontribute to that outcome. In addition, we recognize that we must becomemore inclusive as a community, and we must strive to communicate moreeffectively, to share ideas and knowledge while becoming less protectiveof our own individual interests. In a time of rapidly advancing opportu-nities and forced consolidation, it has become vital to make sure we arefocusing our human capital in support of our strategic priorities, as well asre-examining our workflows and processes to determine what can be donemore efficiently.
From the fourteen objectives identified on the strategy map, 21 initiativeswere adopted in order to support the realization of those objectives. Exam-ples of these initiatives include the Discovery Initiative which was taskedwith identifying ways to increase the accessibility of our resources, includingthe purchase of a web scale discovery tool, and the Programmatic Bud-get Initiative which undertook the development of a programmatic lookat the way our resources were invested. The 21 initiatives identified wereprioritized into three rounds and have been sequenced for implementationfrom 2010 through 2013. Each initiative has been or will be convened by aTask Force member and has an Administrative Sponsor from the executivemanagement team. For each, a working group of six to ten staff from acrossthe organization undertakes the charges of the initiative that were identifiedby the Task Force. The members of the working groups were selected froma library-wide call for participation that resulted in an unexpectedly highresponse rate; of our staff of 228, 97 employees (or 43%) stepped forwardto become involved in the planning and execution of our initiatives.
Once a working group is formed it is given the responsibility of de-veloping recommendations on how UT Libraries can realize the initiativeby issuing a final report to the executive management team. The executivemanagement team then drafts an implementation plan for the working grouprecommendations they have accepted, so that they can direct the work thatneeds to be accomplished at the operational levels throughout the organiza-tion.
UTILIZING THE BALANCED SCORECARD
The development of the Balanced Scorecard was undertaken by the TaskForce (without the assistance of a consultant) after the completion of thestrategy map and the launching of the strategic planning initiatives. The firstversion of our Balanced Scorecard had 34 measures: nine in the customerperspective, four in the financial perspective, nine in the process perspective,and twelve in the learning and growth perspective. After receiving some
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
432 M. Taylor and F. Heath
FIGURE 1 Continuous Planning Cycle. (Color figure available online).
feedback about our Balanced Scorecard from our consultant, we revisedit; the current version was reduced to 28 measures. Based on our currentorganizational capacity and the measures we have identified, we are usingthe Balanced Scorecard for evaluation on a semester basis. As we continueto use the Balanced Scorecard for evaluation of strategic direction we willrefine and reduce the number of measures.
EMBEDDING A CONTINUOUS PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Figure 1 describes the continuous planning process UT Libraries is diligentlyembedding within our organization. What started as strategic planning withinour organization quickly transformed into a continuous planning framework,due to the assessment and evaluation of efforts required. As previously dis-cussed, we used assessment data during the strategic development process,but have also developed a system through which we assess our strategicefforts on three levels: the strategic objective level, the implementation planlevel, and the initiative level.
Evaluating the impact of our strategic objectives is accomplished throughthe measures identified on the Balanced Scorecard, which are scored threetimes a year. Implementation plan evaluation is conducted by the Assess-ment Coordinator, who tracks all the implementation steps associated witheach recommendation to ensure that the implementation plan is completed,and it is reviewed regularly with the executive management team and eachsemester with the Task Force. Additionally, there are success metrics associ-ated with each initiative so that our organization can ascertain whether, oncean initiative is implemented, it is accomplishing its stated objectives.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Assessment and Continuous Planning 433
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CONTINUOUS PLANNING
Although our initiative only began in 2010, UT Libraries has had many suc-cesses associated with embedding this continuous planning framework, butwe have also learned a lot about the planning process and our organiza-tion in general. Following is an elucidation of our lessons learned that mayhelp guide other organizations in similar circumstances who are attemptingto embed a continuous planning process, as well as those developing anorganizational Balanced Scorecard.
Fortunately, we have experienced an increase in organizational com-mitment by creating a continuous planning process that utilizes staff fromacross the organization. One advantage of embracing a team-based approachto our planning has been our ability to capitalize on the expertise of exec-utive management, managers, and staff. In addition, involving staff at alllevels helps ensure stakeholder buy-in for the plan, which increases the like-lihood of embedding it in the organization. As a result, we have seen anunprecedented embrace of our planning efforts within our organization andhave observed a surprisingly high willingness to participate in the processon both the Task Force and working-group level. But the downside of ateam-based, cross-organizational planning effort is that it has taken longerto create and execute the strategic vision and planning efforts. Solicitingfeedback, consensus-building, and the logistics associated with involvingso many people slows down the process. Another piece of the continuousplanning process we have found to be critical is the development of detailedimplementation plans that include mechanisms for tracking and reportingout to the organization. This is especially important if your staff tend tobe skeptical about follow-through, about planning efforts completed onlyto be placed “on the shelf.” All participants in the process at UT are com-mitted to providing staff a transparent accountability of the implementationof the strategic initiative recommendations, in order to prove the worth ofthe investment that our organization has made in strategic planning and todemonstrate the integrity of the process.
Through our planning process we learned much about the developmentand use of a Balanced Scorecard. We found that the creation of this essen-tial tool can be difficult and time consuming, primarily with regards to thedevelopment of the measures. We discovered that the number of measuresthat appear on the Scorecard should be limited to the smallest possible setof key metrics. Ideally there should be between 15 and 25 measures on theBalanced Scorecard; our organization currently has 28 and we are constantlytrying to reduce the number. From experience we have learned that it doesget easier to reduce the number of measures as the organization becomesfamiliar with the use of the Scorecard, because during evaluation it becomesclear which measures are providing the library leadership with actionabledata and which are not. We also discovered that measures that appear on
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
434 M. Taylor and F. Heath
the Scorecard should be limited to those that only the most senior personin the organization, and those who make campus resource allocation deci-sions, should attend to. The tendency in your organization may be to havemeasures that provide a full picture of the successful implementation of astrategic objective, but only measures that provide a high-level interpreta-tion should be included. The frequency and type of measures should alsobe considered during Scorecard development. Frequent measures are betterthan infrequent ones since they make the Scorecard more of an actionable,decision-making tool, rather than a report card which emphasizes historicalperformance. The type of measure, lead or lag, is also an important consid-eration when developing your Scorecard. Lead measures drive the results,while lag measures reflect the outcomes. Lead measures provide predictiveinformation and guidance while lag measures represent a snapshot of perfor-mance, after the fact. Lead measures are typically more difficult to identify,which is why Scorecards often have more lag measures. When creating lagmeasures, ask yourself the question, “If we are successful in accomplishingthis strategic objective how will we know?” This simple question has helpedour organization focus on the metrics that are important and measurable andhas resulted in fewer, more targeted measures. It is also wise to create goodmeasurement definitions and include all formulas and calculations so thatyou can remind data owners how the data should be generated, especiallyfor measures that are generated on an infrequent basis.
THE FUTURE OF CONTINUOUS PLANNING AT UT LIBRARIES
The UT Libraries is committed to embedding a planning and continuousimprovement process into the fabric of the organization in order to providestrategic direction, optimize our staff and resources, and enable organiza-tional accountability. Our planning process has required a considerable in-vestment in time and effort, but we see it as a crucial step towards ensuringthat UT Libraries continues to be an integral component of the success ofthe University of Texas at Austin.
REFERENCES
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2010). 2010 top trends in academiclibraries: A review of the current literature. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/6/286.full
Association of Research Libraries. (n.d.). What is ClimateQual? Retrieved fromhttp://www.climatequal.org/home
Birdsall, D. (n.d.). Strategic planning in academic libraries: A political perspective.Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/booksanddigitalresources/booksmonographs/pil/pil-49/birdsall
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Assessment and Continuous Planning 435
Brown, W., & Gonzalez, B. B. (2007). Academic libraries: Should strategic planningbe renewed? Technical Services Quarterly, 24(3), 1–14.
Lederman, D. (2010, March 2). Imperfect accountability. Inside Higher Ed. Retrievedfrom http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/02/voluntary
Matthews, J. (2005). Strategic planning and management for library managers. West-port, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Pulley, J. (2003, February 28). Struggling against the tide. Chronicle of Higher Edu-cation.
Taylor, M. (2011, August). Strategy Development at the University of Texas Utiliz-ing the Balanced Scorecard. Presentation at the 9th Northumbria InternationalConference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services,York, UK.
Wood, E., Miller, R., & Knapp, A. (2007). Beyond survival: Managing academiclibraries in transition. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lan
cast
er U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
13:
23 3
0 O
ctob
er 2
014