As busy as we all are, sometimes it can be difficult to see the tremendous progress we’ve made in the last couple of years—particularly with something as diffuse as the priorities planning process. Our most recent cabinet meeting provides a snapshot of how far we’ve come.
As indicated in cabinet minutes, earlier this year cabinet produced a set of priorities to guide our activities over the next 18 months or so. These priorities have specific projects in mind and reflect the capacity of our central units. This planning document is intended to be the scaffolding for our collective work and, by definition, we must work within its bounds. While this may sound limiting—“We only do what’s on the list!”—when it is working well, the opposite is true. A good plan enables us to take advantage of unexpected opportunities as they arise. And in recent weeks, four such opportunities have been brought to the Libraries.
These requests are for activities that are not currently part of our plan and must be weighed against our existing commitments. Our recent discussion at Cabinet illustrates the give and take negotiations that must take place when we consider new projects or services.
Our shared list of priorities forms the foundation of purposeful discussions about tradeoffs and how best to shift priorities to new opportunities. For example, we have been asked to create space for a new OIT Lab in Alexander Library and to provide dedicated health sciences library services at LSM. Both of these requests stem from strategic initiatives within the university. We have also been approached about integrating ORCID into our journal platform and providing ETD support for honors undergraduate theses. Each of these is a reasonable request, but they require time and effort from the same central units that support our existing weeding projects, the implementation of ExLibris, and the development of digital projects templates, among other items identified through the planning process.
Cabinet considered the source of the requests; the anticipated benefit to local users; staffing and capacity in the central Libraries units; the amount of development vs. coordination required; and more, before deciding which opportunities to pursue. The outcomes, communicated in the minutes, are to move forward with adding ORCID iDs to the Open Journal System workflow and to shift weeding priorities to accommodate the deadlines for the Alexander OIT Lab and the LSM renovations. We also decided to hold off on the development of honors ETDs process.
This is not because including honors theses in RUCore is a bad idea—we simply don’t have capacity this year and we have other priorities to complete. But this is where the planning process kicks in. A local need has been identified, and while we don’t have capacity to follow through this year, the proposal will be moved forward to next year’s planning process for consideration.
No doubt, there will be additional requests from the university and additional local needs identified throughout the year. In fact, I would argue that the level of attention we are receiving from the university is an indicator of the important role of the Libraries on campus. We are viewed as strong partners and collaborators, our spaces are appreciated student resources, and our services are recognized as key to student success.
Thankfully, we now have a planning model that allows us to assess these opportunities in objective, realistic, and equitable ways that balance the needs of Camden, Newark, New Brunswick, and RBHS. We must continue to take on high priority projects for the university, but we must also make sure we have the capacity, technology, and resources to succeed. The only thing worse than saying “not now,” is saying “yes,” and not completing the task. These types of discussions are much easier to have when we have a shared understanding of priorities and capacity.
