Strategic Planning Speaker’s Series:
Follow-up Analysis of Elliot Shore’s Trends in Research Libraries presentation.
Elliott Shore, Executive Director, Association of Research Libraries (ARL), spoke to Penn Libraries’
staff on December 13, 2013, on the biggest trends facing today’s research libraries in the digital age.
He began by noting how recent technologies have fundamentally changed the landscape, requiring
new skills and new approaches to research librarianship, and stressed that we are agents in creating
our future and not mere recipients of change. He rejected two traditional approaches to strategic
planning--the “discrete problems approach” and the “silver bullet theory”--in favor of a more organic
process of strategic thinking and design to create “systems of action.” Key to his approach are the
principles of collaboration, coherence, and interactivity. He also noted, in response to a question, that
university administrators were seeking answers from the library world for solutions to problems they
were facing: fostering good scholarship among faculty and students and retention of the same. Shore
felt it was self-evident that libraries are engines for innovation.
Feedback and Analysis
Staff feedback came mainly from the Q&A after the talk and from a survey that participants could
submit in print or online. The major themes from this feedback formed the list of trend topics for the
follow-up workshop held on Thursday, December 19.
Following Shore’s talk on current trends affecting libraries, 47 members of the Libraries’ staff gathered
for in-depth discussion of some of the key trends and themes that emerged from his talk and from
subsequent staff feedback. As expected, some topics received more discussion than others, but it was
interesting to note the connections between them – for example, Measurement & Metrics is closely tied
to Academic Freedom/Surveillance and Competency Trap is related to Innovation and Risk as well as
Agency.
This analysis will address the major themes drawn from staff feedback in the Q&A session following
Shore’s talk and the follow-up survey posted on Confluence. It is important to note that, though we
divided into discrete discussion groups, each conversation was a multifaceted one in which themes
discussed in other groups were raised in discussions of each theme.
The topics discussed were:
● Measurement and Metrics
● Nurturing Areas of Good Work
● The Library as an Interactive Organism
● Space
● Innovation/Risk
● Collaboration
● Competency Trap
● Surveillance/Academic Freedom
● Agency
● Agility
1
The results of the discussion of each theme are summarized below and followed by a strategic planning
take-away.
Measurement and Metrics
One of the issues raised in Shore’s talk was the question of metrics and the role of measurements
in determining the success of a research library. Shore’s opinion was that most of the metrics we
use reflect outdated standards of evaluation.
In the workshop, participants reiterated the inherent problems of collecting statistics and what were
the best metrics to use in university libraries today. Discussed were traditional methods, such as
circulation statistics or budget data, but also possible emerging measurements such as those
gained from social media. In general the problem is how to best show efficiencies, effectiveness,
and impact at the department, institutional, and university-wide levels? Some participants also
expressed feeling overwhelmed by the amount of data. Some expressed concern about
transparency in the data collection process, wondering how and when the data was analyzed, and
who do we share it with? One concluding sentiment was that the collection and analysis of
statistics- and data-gathering as well as our outcomes in general should be aligned with the
University’s strategic plan.
Strategic Take-away: Metrics and measurement gathering is not a clear, well-defined process.
This topic is of high interest to staff but needs greater clarification in the strategic planning process.
Nurturing Areas of Good Work
Shore stressed the need for good leadership to nurture good work in the context of innovation and
risk.
In the workshop discussion, there was, of course, general agreement about nurturing good work,
but how this was to be done fed into the conversations on many of the themes, especially
Innovation and Risk. But, there was also a concern for nurturing areas of good work that was
already being done and that aspect of the Libraries work should not be ignored or dismissed. For
further feedback on this theme, see also Agility and Agency.
Strategic Take-away: No one would deny that good work needs to be nurtured. The question is
rather how to ensure that staff have the ability to work effectively and to innovate.
The Library as an Interactive Organism
This theme was not explicitly discussed by Shore but emerged in the subsequent questions and
survey analyses of his talk. It relates closely to the concepts of Collaboration, Innovation and
Risk, and Agility, discussed below. Participants identified two sides of interaction: internal and
external. They noted that knowledge-sharing is a successful means of becoming more interactive
and identified one Space (see below)--the Information Desk--that provided a great opportunity for
the institution to get a broader view of the Libraries and all the people we reach. Obstacles
identified by participants were constant technological changes; the risk of becoming tool-oriented
vs. problem-oriented; lack of agility to adapt to shifting needs and environment.
2
Strategic Take-away: The library as an interactive organism is a compelling ideal, but staff need
support and skill-development to be interactive.
Idea Bank follow up: Two articles were submitted to the Idea Bank by Catherine Odson that touch
on this topic as well as on the topic of Agility. The first is “Organizing a Growing Organism,” by
Barbara Fister (Library Journal, Nov. 21, 2013); the second is “Today I Bent a Rule,” by Sara Gillis
(OCLC WebJunction, Dec. 13, 2013). Both are useful in articulating the issues and offering possible
solutions.
Space
Throughout his research trip across the American Research Library landscape, Shore noted that
libraries were making innovations in their physical spaces that were enriching the user experience
and value of libraries within their campus environments.
Discussion participants discussed the importance of the emotional/spiritual/psychological
connections that patrons make with library spaces and how those connections impact the role of the
library on campus, but noted more practical aspects of space as well, such as the need to find a
balance between off- and on-site storage (space for books vs space for people) and the need to
create better work environments for staff (e.g. less segmented). Participants also noted the
importance of online or virtual space in the Libraries’ mission.
Strategic Take-away: There needs to be a unified and coherent commitment to architectural ideals
and emotional design as the libraries move forward to ensure that the libraries are spaces that
people want to come to, work in and work for.
Innovation/Risk
Innovation and Risk was a significant part of both Shore’s talk and the discussion workshop. Shore
emphasized that innovation cannot happen without risk-taking and that we need to avoid the
Competency Trap, i.e. only focusing on and incrementally approving the things we are already
good at doing out of the fear of risk or failure.
The workshop discussion was very lively and overlapped with other themes. The first issue to be
raised was the ability to innovate, in other words do we have the Agility (see below) to be
innovative. A number of obstacles to innovation and risk were also pointed out: shifting horizons,
lack of time to innovated on top of existing workload, difficulty in innovating on a large scale (though
most effective approach), and ability to keep pace with innovation. Nurturing Good Work (see
above) was tied to innovation as was, conversely, the competency trap (see below). Relating
somewhat to Metrics and Measurement (see above), participants noted that we would need a
regular and consistent assessment of services as well as tools to determine whether a service
serves our goal, and those metrics aren’t always available.
Strategic Take-away: The concepts of innovation and risk were the big questions and fundamental
to the strategic planning process. Difficult but important discussions need to happen regarding 1)
3
what things we continue to do, 2) what new things we do, and 3) what we stop doing.
Collaboration
Shore discussed the need for collaboration in a number of contexts: across academic disciplines,
within libraries, between libraries and academic departments, and with other libraries. His
Interactive Organism concept describes a certain kind of collaboration he urged us to consider.
See also Space (both physical and virtual) as collaborative environments, and the Agility and
Agency required to respond to such opportunities.
The group discussed both internal and patron-facing collaboration topics. Internal discussion
focused on potential improvements in communication across library departments and units,
including an idea bank, whiteboards in common areas, making use of communication/marketing
techniques like blogs, email and flyers, the creation of a central staff outreach clearinghouse, and
the need for rotation and cross-pollination between departments and units.
The theme of patron-facing collaboration resonated with Metrics issues, in that data about patron
needs and opportunities for collaboration need to be acquired. Ideas generated by the group to
improve our intelligence-gathering included providing feedback mechanisms at the point of service,
crowd-sourced information (presumably via web engagement tactics), and gaining a better
understanding of how we communicate with our constituents.
Collaboration opportunities outside of the Penn bubble were least discussed, with BorrowDirect+
and Hathi Trust noted as known instances.
Strategic Take-away: To collaborate with both internal and external communities, gaining a better
understanding of our current connections (and gap) is an important first step.
Agency
Shore discussed Agency in the context of the so-called tsunami crashing across the libraries’
landscape. He pointed out that some perceive change as an overwhelming problem, and we
therefore lack control of our environment. With a sense of agency, we can bypass this cynical
modality and engage in proactive solutions. To successfully adopt this perspective, we need to feel
empowered to Innovate and take Risks, and should take a critical look to identify any
Competency Traps holding us back.
The discussion group notes that agency is two-sided. There is the agency of the organization in the
University and the world, and the agency of individuals inside our organization. While the discussion
largely focused on agency as an internal issue, the group sagely pointed out that if staff felt they
had more of it, this might translate as empowerment, ability, Agility, and opportunity to our
community via our interactions.
The group expressed the need to provide a safe Space (mental and physical) for innovative ideas
and risk-taking. The mechanisms for expressing innovative ideas is currently opaque. When an idea
is discussed and does rise through the bureaucracy, a transparent path and result would go a long
4
way in fostering a sense of agency.
Strategic Take-away: Encouraging safe spaces and times for experimentation and innovation,
combined with transparent communication around new ideas within the organization may improve
and ignite the staff’s sense of agency. The benefits of a fired-up, empowered staff serving our
community are easy to imagine.
Agility
Shore did not directly invoke this concept, but the crowd heard it inflected loudly enough in other
themes (Innovation and Risk, Agency, Interactive Organism, Competency Trap) that the
advisory elevated it to a full-fledged workshop topic.
The group identified a number of obstacles to overcome in becoming a more agile organization:
librarians’ tendency to be conservative, the inertia of our structure, resource limitations, external
forces (Penn, the world). It’s assumed that individual pockets of innovation exist, but it’s difficult to
identify and Nurture These Areas of Good Work. The organization should foster innovation, and
provide an open environment for agility, without fear. An agile posture organizationally comes with
responsibility, and requires transparency and assistance in any related shifts.
Strategic Take-away: Much like the Innovation and Risk and Agency take-aways, a thoughtful,
transparent, permissive environment for innovation and empowerment should be carefully fostered.
Competency Trap
Taking Risks, Innovating, being Agile and empowering people to have Agency means working
ourselves out of a rut. Librarians, however, can fall into a Competency Trap, i.e. the belief that what
we’re doing has been good, is good, is necessary, and we’re good at it, so let’s don’t change. The
challenge is to review these responsibilities and habits to see if some could be dropped for more
forward-looking uses of our time - both individually and collectively.
All discussion groups touched on this theme in some form or another. Folks pointed out that it is
challenging to step back to see what we might be able to live without. While we do want to create
an environment that encourages risk and innovation, many in the organization are inherently riskaverse. Also considered were how to make time and Space for identifying these traps and for
experimenting with new ideas and techniques. The groups cautioned that not everything has to be
innovative - some of the humdrum things we do are still of core importance. Some wondered if
these traps are more about how we do those things rather than the fact of our doing them. Folks
wondered what an assessment of our processes and responsibilities might look like, whether we
have the necessary Metrics to undertake such an evaluation, and whether our organization has the
capacity/resources to do so.
Strategic Take-away: Echoing the Innovation and Risk take-away, staff are ready and willing to
work out of traps in a constructive way, adopting new practices and roles in the wake of innovators.
This process of evaluation, elimination (or validation) and adoption should be thoughtful,
underpinned with data, transparent, and geared toward building new competencies and capacity.
5
Surveillance/Academic Freedom
Shore’s comment that libraries are one of the last surveillance-free places in the world generated
approval from staff who responded to the survey. How do we balance this point of pride with our
increasing need to use Data to guide our way?
The group discussed the fine line between intelligence and surveillance. Discussion focused less on
our own practices, as we maintain an ethical stance, and more on vendor practices. The group
affirmed that we should “anonymize” as much as possible, disclose what we’re collecting, prevent
re-identification, collect only what we need, delete data when we’re done with it, and remain vigilant
about the vendor and 3rd-party (eg Google, Facebook) practices.
Strategic Take-away: While this staff are proud of this distinction, how transparent are we about
our practices with our patrons? Do we clearly and habitually communicate our policies and
practices to our patrons? What responsibilities are we truly successful in fulfilling, and where are we
falling short, particularly with respect to vendors and other third parties?
Report submitted February 17, 2014 by the Strategic Advisory Speaker Series Team (Kate Atkins,
Peter Collins, Lynn Ransom)
6