Sarah Hartman-Caverly examines the library technology plans of Brown, Bryant, and Lehigh University libraries with respect to
stakeholder representation, the current technology landscape, visionary goals, recognition of constraints, and on-going assessment.
Library technology plans are strategic documents and should be developed by bodies that are representative of the library
technology stakeholder community. These plans should use the library’s current technology landscape, including an inventory of
hardware and software and an analysis of strengths and weaknesses, as the foundation for strategic planning. Technology plans are
characterized by aspirational, outcome-based goals that are tied to actionable objectives. They should also recognize any constraints on
the ability of the library to implement its technology plan, and include a method for evaluating and updating the plan.
A library plan that is developed through a process which “promote[s] ownership and collaborative decision-making”1 and is
“based on broad participation and ownership by the library, its board, patrons, and others in the community consuming the library’s
technology services”2 will ensure ‘buy in’ to the plan from stakeholders. The Lehigh University “Strategic Plan for Library and
Technology Services” acknowledges the input of “key campus leaders representing each academic college and several student
administrative support areas” and is described as the “result of a six-month collaborative planning process that involved a broad cross
section of the campus community”3. Similarly, the Brown University Libraries “Technology Plan” specifically references “aligning the
library with the [university's] plan for academic enrichment,” “forging relationships across campus,” “reaching out to donors” and
“securing administrative support” as strategic directions for the library, although the practical steps to forge these relationships are not
outlined in the technology plan4. The Bryant University library technology plan designates that it was “prepared... for OLIS,”i suggesting
that an external stakeholder had an interest in the plan5. While none of the library technology plans examined provide an explicit list of
library technology stakeholders, the language used to describe library technology users is consistent across the three plans, including terms
such as: “current and future students,” “users,” “internal users,” “faculty,” “staff,” “administrators” and the names of related departments
such as “Computing & Information Systems.” Although only the Lehigh University plan described a specific methodology for
involving stakeholders in the strategic planning process, it is clear that all three library technology plans were developed with
stakeholders’ interests in mind. The interests, needs, and input of stakeholders should be sought early in the planning process to ensure
that the library’s strategic direction for technology is one which satisfies both its user community and its staff and administration.
In addition to involving library stakeholders in the strategic planning process, library technology plans should be inspired by the
strategic mission or vision of the library or the larger organization in which it is embedded. “When the technology plan is part of a larger
picture, specifically, the overall strategic long-range plan, the goals, missions, and visions embodied therein will be part and parcel of
organizational activities - the plan will be integrated”6. The strategy expressed in a library technology plan should be aspirational and
vision-oriented7. All three library technology plans made an explicit reference to the library’s vision statement. Lehigh’s library
technology plan “highlights LTS' [Library and Technology Services] leadership role in assuring that both technology and library services
are clearly viewed as a mission critical resource supporting and enhancing the national academic and research reputation of Lehigh
University”8 and is founded on “the Seven Goals for Lehigh,” which point to the mission at the institutional level. The Lehigh plan also
references the library vision in the original draft, which asserts that the library “enables flexibility, innovation, and effectiveness in all areas
of the academic enterprise, including learning, research, administration, community building, and outreach”9. The Brown technology
plan makes a direct reference to the library’s mission statement, draws its goals from the list of the library’s strategic directions, and is
hyperlinked to the university’s “Plan for Academic Enrichment.” The Brown library mission statement is particularly aspirational in
describing the library as “simultaneously collection, connection, and classroom” for students, faculty, and colleagues in local, regional,
national, and global communities10. This kind of mission guides the enhancement and improvement of library technologies by providing
the library with a common image of technology and information services to strive toward. Unlike the Lehigh and Brown plans, the
Bryant library technology plan does not explicitly mention other university strategies, plans, or initiatives, but says that the library will
work in conjunction with the Information Services Division, particularly on hardware/software and networking objectives. The Bryant
library technology plan is much more functional than aspirational, being based in a vision statement that strives “to utilize information and
communication technologies to enhance the access and delivery of information and library services to its users”11. The role of a vision
statement is to provide the library with a common understanding of what the library is trying to become or achieve; technology strategies
that reference the library’s vision can advance the library toward its vision through the implementation of technologies.
Strategic planning should also stress the integration of technology into the academy’s operations. The Lehigh plan places
explicit emphasis on identifying technologies that can enhance the learning environment, such as in an objective which instructs:
“Working with faculty, assess the value of current and emerging technologies to enhance learning within and beyond the classroom,
i
The meaning of this acronym is not explained in the planning document and could not be determined. A search for the acronym
“OLIS” on the Bryant University website brings back 0 results. Searches for "office of library and information systems" and "office
of library and information services" return irrelevant results.
Hartman-Caverly
2
including phenomena like instructional gaming and virtual environments, tablet PCs, and social networking tools”12. In the Lehigh plan,
technologies are integrated into teaching, learning and distributed learning, research, and content and knowledge asset management. The
Brown technology plan also includes strategic goals that expand the focus of library technology to include support for teaching and
scholarship. These goals are “Develop Campus-Wide Brown Digital Repository,” which can be used to securely store and disseminate
faculty research in digital form; “Expand Locally Produced Digital Content,” which involves working with other campus stakeholders in
the collection and digitization of unique materials; and “Build Relationships Across Campus,” which will be achieved by improving the
directory of local research and researchers and by creating an e-portfolio service for students. The Bryant library technology plan makes
explicit reference to greater integration with the operations of the university, such as in the objective to implement an ILS that is
interoperable with many academic enterprise systems, as well as the goal to “provide library users with robust equipment and networks
which support the current needs of library users and efficient access to information resources”13. Expanding the focus of library
technology to include integration with other campus initiatives will ensure that the library serves the overall mission of the institution and
remains a relevant and useful resource for scholars.
A focus on library technology stakeholders will also produce a technology plan that is outcome-based, not input-based, by
emphasizing what stakeholders should be able to achieve with technology14. In order to maintain an outcome-based focus on technology
planning, library technology plans should ask: “What applications of technology are available that will help our students, staff, and
administration work smarter, not harder?”15 As with stakeholder inclusion in plan development, the Lehigh plan takes a strong and
explicit stance for out-come based technology planning in stating that “it is important that we at Lehigh 'not mistake the tool for the
goal'“16. Lehigh’s plan describes technology as “an indispensable enabler of new collaborative and interdisciplinary initiatives,” naming
examples such as opto-electronics and photonics, computer science, and bio-engineering, and describes the purpose of the strategic plan
for technology as “to make thoughtful use of information technology and library resources for the enrichment and extension of the
learning environment without allowing technology alone to drive the evolution of that environment”17. The Lehigh technology plan
maintains an outcome- rather than technology-based strategy by discussing families of systems, such as “emerging systems to manage
library data,” “next generation integrated library systems,” “citation management software,” “synchronous communications software,”
“classroom note-taking software”, and “real-time conference tools,” rather than naming specific brands or arrangements of hardware and
software. Brown’s plan is also outcome-based, as the “Library's Mission and Strategic Directions serve as the framework for the
goals”18. The library’s strategic directions include initiatives like: “Expanding Collections and Access to Scholarly Resources,”
“Providing Multiple Models of Service,” and “Developing and Using Cutting-Edge Research Tools,” which suggest a focus on applying
technology to achieve certain ends rather than for the sake of the technology itself. Bryant’s plan uses less aspirational language than
Lehigh and Brown’s, but is still outcome-orientedii. The syntax of the goals in the Bryant plan follows a “the library will ... to...” pattern,
suggesting that each goal-oriented action is tied to an expected outcome. For example, one goal in the Bryant plan is that “the library will
utilize a Content Management System to organize the intellectual output of Bryant University and to highlight Bryant's legacy
collections”19. An outcome-based focus on library technology planning results in technology adoption based on how that technology
can be used to facilitate the information activities of users. An outcome-based focus can also act as a precaution against “technolust,” or
the pursuit of new technologies solely for technology’s sake.
Library technology strategies should be composed with an eye toward greater trends in library technology20, since emerging
technologies may introduce capabilities that can facilitate the library’s achievement of its goals and vision. A growing library trend that all
three library technology plans share is the migration toward and local development of open source software systems. Acknowledging
that “free” open source software comes with perpetual maintenance and support costs, Lehigh University’s technology plan includes a
goal to “explore and adopt appropriate open source software and open access data repositories when these systems are cost effective at
Lehigh and provide flexible and friendly interfaces”21. The Brown University library plan outlines policies for using open-source
software and tools, releasing locally developed code as open source, and best practices for software design and implementation as actions
toward its objective to “support open platforms and architecture”22. Likewise, the Bryant University plan includes an ongoing
investigation of open source alternatives to library systems. Each library plan also includes a number of other library and Web
technology trends for enhancing the discovery of library resources, making those resources more accessible, and maintaining the library’s
status as the center of digital scholarship. Enhanced discovery is achieved through technologies like using application programming
ii
The difference in aspirational scale between the Bryant plan and the Lehigh and Brown plans may be the result of the temporal focus
of the respective plans: Bryant’s plan is reviewed and updated every year, whereas Lehigh’s covers a five-year period (2006-2010)
and Brown’s, a three-year period (2009-2011).
Hartman-Caverly
3
interfaces (APIs) to create Web services and implement enhanced content in the OPAC, such as an “interactive call number locator”23;
implementing federated search and faceted browsing; implementing a mobile version of the OPAC and library website; creating a
service to generate customized lists and RSS feeds of new titles; and openURL linking and e-journal discovery services. Making
resources more accessible can be accomplished by offering virtual reference services with online chat; loaning laptops and e-readers;
continuing the ongoing migration of the knowledge collection from print to electronic format; providing streaming video and video-ondemand services; consolidating and virtualizing servers; and investigating emerging library automation systems, such as electronic
resource management systems. The central role of the library in scholarship is continued through efforts to develop library spaces that are
“exciting, flexible, and technologically state-of-the-art”24; pursuing enterprise-wide system interoperability and single sign-on
authentication; providing APIs to facilitate faculty submissions into the institutional repository and other content management systems;
and providing wireless, satellite, and VoIP networking services for scholarly collaboration.
Library technology plans should use the library’s current technology landscape as a foundation for future endeavors. This
landscape includes current technological and staff capacities as well as policies and procedures25. Any discussion of the library’s current
capacity with regard to technology should include a frank discussion of its strengths and weaknesses26. The Lehigh plan addresses its
current landscape in a section on the strengths and challenges of the Library and Technology Services (LTS) department. The plan
names professional staff and student technicians, a high-capacity backbone network, wireless connectivity, satellite up- and down-link
networking technology, public access computing facilities, and wide adoption of course management and instructional technologies
among faculty as the primary strategic strengths. The Lehigh plan points to outdated twisted-pair copper wiring in building intranets and
to the lack of “technically flexible seminar space and student collaborative learning areas” in the library as technological challenges 27,
while lean staffing and a “risk-averse” institutional culture represent its institutional challenges. Bryant’s library technology plan
examines the technology landscape beyond the library, including interoperability with other academic enterprise systems such as Banner,
Blackboard, ePortfolio, and college portals to facilitate “seamless and user friendly connectivity” as desirable functionality in future library
systems28. The Brown library technology plan doesn’t address technological capacity directly, but does lay out some specific objectives
and activities for developing staff capacity, as well as policies and procedures. These include the objective to “Augment and improve
server support,” which includes actions for developing local systems administration expertise for UNIX/LINUX and working with
campus IS/IT services on server configuration, security, and maintenance, as well as the objective to “Standardize programming
practices,” which includes using standard programming frameworks and the implementation of policies for using Subversion to control
versions of web applications29.
A large part of the library’s current technology landscape is an inventory of the hardware and software systems that are deployed
to meet users’ information needs. The Bryant plan provides the most comprehensive inventory, describing the number and location of
public and staff computers and peripherals including scanners, printers, and barcode readers, as well as special technologies such as
laptops and e-readers available for loan, copiers, microfilm readers, and custom hardware and software configurations such as the ARIEL
interlibrary loan workstation. The Brown library technology plan does not have a developed inventory of current technologies, but
certain features can be inferred from the plan's details, such as the configuration of UNIX/LINUX servers that will be virtualized with
VMWARE, the use of the MetaLib federated discovery interface, the development of an institutional digital repository, and the
implementation of the RAPID resource sharing system and SFX link resolver and Serials Solutions systems. The Lehigh plan has the
least developed technology inventory as a component of its current landscape; but, as in the case of the Brown plan, some details can be
inferred, such as a growing focus on the acquisition of electronic content (such as e-journals and e-books), the development of an
institutional repository and digital archive, and access to wired and wireless networks as well as satellite, Web, and video conferencing
technologies.
The current technology landscape should also include plans for the maintenance, upgrade, and replacement of existing hardware
and software systems30. In addition to its comprehensive technology inventory, the Bryant plan has an explicit technology lifecycle and
replacement policy. This is in contrast to the Brown and Lehigh technology plans, which acknowledge that hardware and software
system maintenance will occur but do not specify timelines or other policies for the technology lifecycle. The Brown plan includes an
action to “upgrade staff hardware and software on a regular basis” and also to provide training for staff “as hardware and software
evolve”31. As an action toward the goal of “Develop[ing] Enhanced Academic/Research Computing Capacity,” Lehigh plans to
“maintain regular life cycle replacement for high performance computing systems including the compute server, workstations, and
Beowulf clusters”32. The Lehigh plan is the only one to include mention of “semi-annual disaster recovery 'rehearsals' conducted in
coordination with Lehigh's off-site disaster recovery provider”33. A library technology plan must account for how existing and future
Hartman-Caverly
4
technologies will be managed and maintained as part of the library’s current technology landscape. This planning allows the library to
anticipate system replacement and avoid downtime due to system failure as a result of poor maintenance and inattention to updates and
upgrades.
The core of a library technology plan is a list of short-term, actionable objectives which help the library achieve its long-term
technology goals34. Ideally, a library technology plan will focus on the near term - five years or less - due to the rapid evolution of
technology35. The Lehigh plan focuses on a five-year period (2006-2010) and derives each goal from initiatives listed in the five-year
agenda developed by LTS management in collaboration with faculty and staff in 2002. Each goal in the plan has a title, a textual
description, and a series of actionable steps that will be taken to fulfill the goal. The Brown technology plan covers a three-year period
(2009-2011); each goal, which is based on a strategic direction from the library's mission statement, is subdivided into actionable
objectives, which are implemented through specific activities. The Bryant library technology plan does not specify a period of coverage,
but is reviewed and updated on an annual basis. In the Bryant plan, the goals are phrased as though they are on-going; some objectives
suggest immediacy whereas others sound more long-term oriented. For instance, one goal is stated in as “The library will use
information and telecommunication technologies to enhance information literacy objectives” while another goal reads, “The library will
continue to replace print content with electronic content where possible”36.
Effective library technology plans recognize that goals will be pursued within the bounds of certain constraints, be they time,
budget, staffing, or the very limits of technology itself37,38. Both the Lehigh plan and the Bryant plan make explicit references to the
limitations of funding. Of investments in systems and infrastructure, the Lehigh plan states: “It is clear that given the financial magnitude
of the technology upgrades required at Lehigh that some projects, because of financial realities, will need to be prioritized and their
implementation spread out over the next five years”39. In the Bryant plan, funding is addressed as a consideration in the case of
implementing federated searching, updating the library’s GIS software, and the continuing transfer of budget funds from print
acquisitions to electronic acquisitions. Another concern is that, as technologies evolve, local knowledge and training can become obsolete
without an ongoing concerted effort at staff training. Library technology plans should also be tied directly to staff development plans40.
Each of the three plans addresses staff training with respect to at least one of their library technology goals. At Lehigh, the goal to
“Develop Enhanced Academic/Research Computing Capacity” includes the objective to “Expand training and awareness of high
performance computing resources through workshops, special events, listserv communications, and relationships with other centers of
excellence to share support of specialized applications”41. The Brown plan outlines steps to develop local expertise in UNIX/LINUX
administration and in open source programming and programming best practices, as well as to retrain staff whenever hardware or
software upgrades or replacements make such training necessary. The Bryant plan includes a goal “to provide staff with the education
needed to support new technologies,” and lists both formal and informal sources for professional development and learning with respect
to technology42.
The process of strategic technology planning does not end when a planning document is written. Library technology plans, like
other strategic documents, should detail a method for periodic review, assessment, revision, and even evaluation by external
stakeholders43,44. The Bryant plan is “reviewed and updated annually” and appears to have been prepared on behalf of an external
agent45. While the Lehigh plan does not specify a method for ongoing assessment, the fact that an original plan from 2002 and an
updated draft from 2006 exist indicate that the plan has been reevaluated and revised. The original Lehigh plan included input from a
number of sources external to the library, including high-level campus administrators like the Associate Dean, Student Life; the Associate
Vice President, Government Relations; the Director of Internet Services; and the Vice President, Finance and Administration. The
Brown technology plan does not mention assessment, revision, or external evaluation. Outlining a method for keeping the library
technology plan current and reflective of evolving library computing needs with respect to changes in technology is crucial to maintaining
a forward-thinking and relevant strategic document.
What is evident from this examination of three often very different academic library technology plans is that strategic plans are
largely internal documents and should be written to serve local planning needs. The inclusion of core elements such as stakeholder
involvement, an examination of the library’s current technology landscape and technology inventory, the development of aspirational
goals that can be realized through actionable objectives, a frank recognition of the constraints within which the library operates, and an
explicit method for on-going assessment will facilitate the development of a robust library technology strategy. It is also possible that, if
some of these items aren't addressed, the technology plan can still serve the library well in guiding the development, implementation, and
use of technology. It is important that any strategic technology plan can be used as a decision-making tool within a management and
governance framework in which these factors are well understood.
Hartman-Caverly
5
N.B.: The library technology plans examined in this critique were selected based on their role as current standalone strategic technology
plans for the academic libraries where they were developed. Efforts were taken to exclude planning documents that were actually
overarching library strategic plans which mentioned technology, or were enterprise-level technology plans which mentioned the library.
An exception was made for the Lehigh University strategic plan, which is a blended document serving their combined library and IS/IT
department. The library technology plans also had to be located via search engine and accessible on the public Web.
1
Anderson, L. S., Perry, J. F. (1994). Technology planning: Recipe for success. Accessed May 7, 2010, at
http://www.nctp.com/html/tp_recipe.cfm
2
New Mexico State Library, Development Bureau. (2008). Checklist for a Library Technology Plan. Accessed May 7, 2010, at
http://www.webjunction.org/techplan-writing/-/articles/content/439551?_OCLC_ARTICLES_getContentFromWJ=true
3
Taggert, B. M. (2002). A strategic plan for Library and Technology Services. Accessed May 3, 2010, at
http://www.lehigh.edu/lts/admin/policies/ltsplan/ltsplan2002.html
4
Brown University Library, Integrated Technology Services. (2009). Brown University Libraries Technology Plan - 2009-2001.
Accessed April 28, 2010, at http://library.brown.edu/its/LORI_goals_2009.pdf
5
Moroney, M. (2010). Technology Vision Statement. Accessed May 4, 2010, at
http://www.bryant.edu/wps/wcm/connect/Bryant/Divisions/Information%20Services/Library/Library%20Information/Techno
logy%20Plan
6
Anderson & Perry. (1994).
7
Anderson & Perry. (1994).
8
Taggert. (2002). p. 2.
9
Taggert. (2002). p. 1.
10
Brown. (2009). p. 1.
11
Moroney. (2010).
12
LTS. (2006). p. 5.
13
Ibid.
14
See, J. (n.d.) Developing effective technology plans. Accessed May 7, 2010, at http://www.nctp.com/john.see.html
15
See. (n.d.)
16
Taggert. (2002). p. 4.
17
Ibid.
18
Brown. (2009). p. 2.
19
Moroney. (2010).
20
Anderson & Perry. (1994).
21
LTS. (2006). p. 4.
22
Brown. (2009). p. 6.
23
Ibid. p. 2.
24
LTS. (2006).
25
NMSLDB. (2008).
26
Anderson & Perry. (1994).
27
Taggert. (2002). p. 3.
28
Moroney. (2010).
29
Brown. (2009). p. 6.
30
NMSLDB. (2008).
31
Brown. (2009). p. 6.
32
Library and Technology Services, Lehigh University. (2006). A strategic plan for Library and Technology Services 2006-2010.
Accessed May 3, 2010, at http://www.lehigh.edu/lts/admin/policies/ltsplan/LTSPlanUpdate_Sept06.pdf
33
Ibid. p. 5.
34
NMSLDB. (2008).
35
See. (n.d.)
36
Moroney. (2010).
37
NMSLDB. (2008).
38
See. (n.d.)
39
Taggert. (2002). p. 3.
40
See. (n.d.)
41
LTS. (2006). p. 3.
Hartman-Caverly
6
42
43
44
45
Moroney. (2010).
Anderson & Perry. (1994).
NMSLDB. (2008).
Moroney. (2010).