WSU Libraries Planning Committee Meeting notes, 03.July.1996

Washington State University Libraries
Planning Committee
03.July.1996 Meeting
Summary Notes

Attending: Janet Chisman, Rhonda Gaylord, Mary Gilles (Co-Chair), Daryl Herbison, Lauren McNiece, Barbara Paulson, Kay Vyhnanek, Sharon Walbridge (Recorder), John Webb, and Christy Zlatos.
Absent: Vicki Croft, Ingrid Mifflin, Jill Palmer, Marilyn Von Seggern and Leslie Wykoff.

Check-in
Barbara Paulson noted that this week's issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has an article about the Virtual Western University. It also contains an article that quotes Harvey Gover on distance education.
Meeting minutes
Minutes of the June 26 meeting were approved as distributed.
Services Survey
Lauren McNiece reported that she had received several comments from people who felt that they did not have enough time to complete the two recent Planning Committee surveys. It was decided that an email message should be sent to all Library staff to the effect that late survey responses would be welcome. The Planning Committee will move ahead with the information it has already received, but more responses would be welcomed.
The results of the services survey in priority order and the categorized list of services will be added to the Planning Committee Webpage. Paper copy will be sent for post/ routing.
What we have learned from the services survey was discussed, with the following points being made:
There is an obvious need for a training/staff development "officer".
The importance of Griffin is obvious. Many of the problems with Griffin are due to the rapid implementation over which the Libraries had no control. The question was asked as to whether the problems represented by Griffin are a one time "blip" -- the feeling seemed to be that other problems will take Griffin's place.
Is the WSU Libraries as an organization ready for the changes we are already seeing? The consensus seemed to be "no". There is need for organizational change so that problems may be anticipated and better dealt with. We need to keep the human element in mind at all times.
The question as to how we develop more effective communication is a major one for the Committee.
With all of the information the Planning Committee now has, can we begin to look at the big picture and actually start to discuss organizational structure? The following represents highlights of that discussion:
There is a need for an instruction group/team to deal with inside and outside training and instruction.
One approach that could be used is what was termed an "aggregate" approach. Bring more people together in new ways to deal with a world that is more complicated and integrated. These groups could address everything from personnel to technology to facilities.
We need to work towards an environment where there is a premium on service and accomplishment - one that is results oriented.
In the current structure, power is in the hands of a very few people.
We need to make better use of individual expertise - don't train everyone to know everything - focus more on strategy than on training.
We need to promote a systematic view - a holistic approach.
How do you get the information you need - not just a flood of information.
There is perceived to be a lack of accountability and a lack of decision-making. One of the ways to address the latter problem is to get more people involved in decision-making. Put together mixes of people who represent diverse views - faculty/staff, Holland/outside, technical services/public services. There were varying views on the need to keep the groups fluid or constant.
Things happen now because of individual initiative, not due to coordination.
Where can new ideas come and where can problems be brought?
One alternative proposed was to maintain the current structure, but to "tweak it". There was a variety of opinion on the extent of "tweaking" necessary. Flexibility needs to be built in to deal with problems more effectively. Also needed is accountability, decision-making and enabling.
We have aggregate groups such as DCIC and the BI group, but the idea of representatives communicating from those groups has not worked well in all cases. There is no accountability or specific responsibility. A structure may be good but it depends on people to make it work.
The perception is that there are lots of cases where people/groups have the responsibility but not the authority.
Aggregate groups need ground rules and/or underlying principles. These would address accountability and responsibility.
There was a discussion on who should resolve serious personality disputes - the two alternatives seemed to be a mediator or the Assistant Directors.
The perception was that a system of checks and balances would be more effective that centralized power.

Next meeting
Look at the "stumbling blocks" survey and categorize the results, perhaps using the values wheel.

Summary by Marilyn Von Seggern, based on Sharon Walbridge's
WSU Libraries Planning Committee meeting notes