2.0 OVERARCHING ISSUES This section addresses the overarching and Library-wide issues related to management functions. We examined general management processes in five key subsections: Library mission, management process, operational process, organization structure, and revenue opportunities. These assessments and recommendations incorporate the analyses from the case studies and the other sections of our report. 2.1 MISSION 2.1.1 Background The mission of the Library of Congress has been the topic of intermittent debate for nearly 200 years. There is no dispute that the Library was established to store ". . . such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress" that were purchased with a $5,000 appropriation signed into law on April 24, 1800.1 The breadth of the Library's collections and, indeed, many of its aspirations derive considerably from Thomas Jefferson's observation that "there was no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasion to refer."2 Various further functions have been assigned to the Library across the subsequent decades, some having little direct connection to its role as a congressional library. The Library's activities today encompass an ad hoc role as national library and a significant international role in developing its collections and addressing Library issues world-wide. The principle is widely accepted that a clearly articulated mission or purpose is central to an organization's success. In public organizations, mission or purpose is commonly stated in the legislation creating the agency or authorizing its funding. Such statements provide guidance for the agency's programs and priorities and for evaluating performance compared to purpose. 2.1.2 Methodology This study has addressed the subject of the Library's mission by doing the following: Reviewing congressional and Library documentation: statutes, reports, and publications Interviewing 10 selected senior public/research library professionals Holding mission/general management focus groups. Participation and schedules for the four focus groups are shown below: Group Participants Date Congressional Staff Members 6 February 16 Senior Library Executives 7 February 17 External Customers 10 March 13 Federal Libraries 8 March 18 BoozaAllen prepared and used a standard protocol for the mission/general management focus groups that addressed four major topics with each group. Each focus group addressed the following: 7 Current mission statement 7 Customers, products, and services 7 Fees for products and services 7 Mission alternatives. The focus groups with congressional staff members and Library executives also explored a fifth topic, the Library reporting or oversight structure. Appendix B presents the focus group protocols and summaries of the session results. This section presents the overall results of this mission review. We also define, on the basis of the interviews and focus groups, alternative Library missions and roles and assess their implications. 2.1.3 Findings The objective of this section is to identify critical mission-related issues and to develop a framework for making decisions regarding the Library's future mission and roles. 1. The Library operates under broad statutory authority. The statutory authority of the Library of Congress provides specific guidance for a number of programs. Throughout its 195-year history, the Library has been tasked with and funded for new initiatives with specific authorities. Recent programs legislatively assigned to the Library include the following: 7 American Television and Radio Archives-1976 7 American Folklife Center-1976 7 Center for the Book-1977 7 Mass Book Deacidification Facility-1984 7 National Film Registry/National Film Preservation Board-1988/92. The Library has broad authority for the acquisition of materials for the Library of Congress and collections using a variety of acquisition methods. This authority and the expanding volumes of materials cause an almost continuous expansion of workload as greater numbers of materials are acquired for the broad range of the Library collections. The enabling legislation that contributed to further expansion of the Library's role was the 1897 legislation authorizing the Librarian of Congress to make rules and regulations for the governing of the Library. This authorization has provided the Librarian with the capability to initiate projects and programs that become individually funded through congressional appropriation and become a permanent component of Library activities. 2. The mission and activities of the Library have continued to expand throughout its history. The Library's activities have almost consistently continued to expand based on both congressional and Librarian actions. With the appointment in 1865 of Ainsworth Spofford as Librarian, the Library of Congress began its expansion from a focus on the legislature to an institution of national and international significance. In 1870, the Copyright Amendment Act brought all copyright registration and deposit activities to the Library and a large collection began to build through copyright deposit. By 1897, the Library had moved into the Jefferson Building and, in the reorganization of the Library, the Librarian was assigned responsibility for making the "rules and regulations for the government" of the Library. For the last century, the roles and mission of the Library have continued to expand both through Librarian initiatives and congressional legislation. Significant events in this mission expansion include the following: 7 Interlibrary loan system established (1901) 7 Sale and distribution of Library of Congress printed catalog cards (1902) 7 Legislative Reference Service (LRS) established (1914) 7 Library of Congress Trust Fund/Board established (1925), creating new cultural role in accepting gifts and bequests 7 Library of Congress Mission in Europe and Mission to Japan, established in 1945-47, initiated automatic book purchase and agreements with foreign dealers 7 LRS renamed Congressional Research Service (CRS) (1970) 7 Acquisition centers established in New Delhi and Cairo (1961) (currently six overseas acquisition offices) 7 Library of Congress Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) format becomes official national standard (1971) and international standard (1973)3 7 Madison Council (1990) established to raise funds from private sources for priority initiatives of the Library 7 National Digital Library (1994) effort to digitize 5 million items of American historical interest by 2000 and make them broadly accessible. In the past 20 years, the expansion of the Library's activities has resulted from rapid growth of the overall collections, specific legislated programs, and Library-sponsored initiatives. The collections have grown at a rapid rate (approximately 2.5 million items annually) as a result of the Library's global reach and through specific initiatives, such as the James Madison Council, in nurturing special collections. Specifically legislated programs in the past two decades include those identified above. Recent initiatives include those associated with a new educational role for the Library, including a Development Office, the James Madison Council, and the "American Memory Project," which has evolved into the National Digital Library (NDL). This breadth of scope has tripled the size of the Library's collections and staff since 1950, with annual appropriations increasing from approximately $9 million in 1950 to more than $350 million in 1996.4 This growth has been accompanied by an increasing range of products and services for its constituencies, the American public, and the international community and has resulted in an extremely broad and expanding range of Library human, physical, technology, and financial resource requirements. The Library's current mission statement continues to provide a broad framework for guiding the Library (full text of the mission and strategic priorities statement appears in Appendix A). In October 1995, the Librarian of Congress articulated the Library's mission as follows: The Library's mission is to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations.5 Although the statement is open to interpretation, it is comprehensive and provides a foundation for the Library's programs. It is supported by four defined priorities: provides service to Congress; preserve, secure and sustain universal collections; make collections maximally accessible; and add interpretive and educational value. We discussed this mission statement in the mission focus groups. Focus group participant comments concerning this mission statement included the following: 7 Deliberately written in the broadest possible terms 7 Generic except for the term "universal" 7 Missing mention of the following: - Leadership role - Role in network of libraries and publishers - Dealing with new forms of knowledge, information, and services - Collaborative role with Federal government/libraries. The definition of universal collection was unclear, and universal collection is considered an impossible goal. "Universal" scope was contrasted with and considered to be different from "comprehensive" collections by senior Library executives. Also the definition of the term "universal" continually expands as knowledge and technology expand. Commitment to future generations was considered a unique Library role that results in a perceived decision making risk in the collections policy in that virtually everything must be acquired as an item of intellectual value. In practice, the Library has distinct exceptions to the stated universal collections policy. First, agriculture and medicine are two disciplines that are excluded from the Library's acquisition processes because other U.S. national libraries acquire and sustain those collections. Second, U.S. Government publications and records, important sources of knowledge and history, are maintained under the purview of the National Archives. Third, some forms of American cultural and intellectual productivity are registered, collected, or archived by the Smithsonian Institution or Patent and Trademark Office. These are all reasonable and distinct exceptions. They show that the Library's collection need not be the truly universal collection of human knowledge or the sole comprehensive record of American history and creativity because distinct forms of knowledge are made available by other national institutions. This mission statement coupled with the range of legislated Library activities continues to provide an extremely broad scope and framework for the Library mission. 3. Current Library activities/programs are numerous and varied. To support the Library's legislated mandates and to support its congressional and public constituencies, the Library provides a broad range of products and services to a wide group of constituencies. Exhibit 2-1 shows the Library's constituencies and principal products and services. EXHIBIT 2-1 Library of Congress Customers, Products, and Services Customer Groups Products/Services Congress: Congressional Members and Staff Congressional Research Service (CRS), Reference, Legislative Information Systems (THOMAS and LC MARVEL), Translation Services, Law Library, Global Legal Information Network (GLIN), Document Delivery Library Internal Staff Document Delivery Other Government: Federal Government Agencies Law Library, Research, Reference Federal Libraries Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK), Federal Library and Information Center (FLICC), Translation Services, Law Library, Global Legal Information Network (GLIN), Legislative Information Systems (THOMAS and LC MARVEL), Cataloging, Interlibrary Loan, Catalog Distribution Service, Federal Research Division (FRD) State and Local Governments Reference, Research Nation/World: Libraries (public, academic, research, special) Interlibrary Loan, Dewey and Library of Congress Classification, Catalog Distribution Service Educators National Digital Library (NDL), Center for the Book Publishers, Scholars, Writers, and Filmmakers Domestic Copyright, International Copyright, Cataloging, Research, Reference, Scholarly Programs, Film Preservation, National Film Preservation Board, National Film Registry General Public Research, Reference, Cultural Performances, Exhibits and Displays, Visitor Services, Retail Marketing, American Folklife Center, Publishing, Publications, Center for the Book, Legislative Information Systems (THOMAS and LC MARVEL), Access to World Wide Web site, Special Projects Legal Community Law Library, Global Legal Information Network (GLIN) Blind & Physically Handicapped National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (national leadership of a network providing access to machines, audiotapes, and Braille publications) General Library Services: Public and Private Libraries and Archives Preservation, Collection Department, Collection Security, Leadership/Coordination, Photoduplication Although this list is not comprehensive, it is indicative of the breadth of activities and range of constituencies to which the Library must respond. The Library delivers these products and services through its four major "services"-Library Services, CRS, Copyright Office, and the Law Library. The majority of Library staff, approximately 45 percent or 2,100 employees, provides constituent services and collections management activities within the Library Services organization. The CRS, the Law Library, and the Library's Congressional Relations Office, supported by some collections management activities, provide the primary congressional support. The Copyright Office supports the collections through copyright registration and deposit of materials submitted for copyright within the United States. 4. Views on the appropriate scope, focus, and role of the Library of Congress differ significantly among its constituencies. This section presents findings and conclusions associated with the Library's missions and roles: 7 National role 7 International role 7 Priority products and services 7 National leadership role 7 Library capabilities. These findings were developed from participant interviews, focus groups, site visits, and Library data. a. The Library has identity and acceptance as America's national library but may not be effectively fulfilling a national mission. John Cole's history of the Library attributes to a former Librarian, Ainsworth Spofford, the conception of the Library, held more than 100 years ago, as an "American" national library.6 In 1992, the American Library Association (ALA), in testimony concerning S. 2748, the Library of Congress Fund Act of 1992, stated, "Although never formally designated as such, the Library of Congress functions as the national library of the United States."7 The Library's own publications often assert this role. As a basis of comparison for the Library's national role, national library missions for five foreign national libraries are shown in Exhibit 2-2. EXHIBIT 2-2 National Library Mission Statements Country/Library Mission-Stated or Implied U.S.-Library of Congress "The Library's mission is to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations." Canada-National Library of Canada "The National Library of Canada is a federal institution. . . whose main role is to acquire, preserve, and promote the published heritage of Canada for all Canadians, both now and in the years to come. The Library serves as one of the nation's foremost centers for research in Canadian Studies and as a showcase for Canadian literature and music. The National Library also plays a major role in fostering the development of library resources and services throughout the country and facilitating resource sharing among Canadian libraries." Australia-National Library of Australia "The Mission of the National Library is to be the world's leading documentary resource for learning about and understanding Australia and Australians, linking closely with other sources of information throughout the nation. In partnership with other institutions, the Library aims to lead and facilitate developments to achieve a highly effective national network of libraries." U.K.-The British Library "As the national library of the United Kingdom, the British Library is charged with responsibility for collecting and retaining a copy of everything published in the UK. In addition, the Library purchases its Document Supply Center collection and buys current material from the rest of the world. Through bequest, donation, and sale it also adds to its collection. The British Library offers, worldwide, a variety of reference, information, lending, and cataloging services . . ." France-Bibliotheque Nationale de France "To encompass every field of knowledge, by filling in the gaps and by reinforcing, with its acquisition policy, the areas of excellence of the BNdeF; to utilize the most modern technologies for the transmission of data, by integrating new media, both to preserve original documents and to function as a network; to be at the disposal of everyone by renewing its public service mission and by proposing to a wider public ... a true access to learned reading." Germany-Die Deutsche Bibliothek "According to the law the Library's primary responsibility is the collection, cataloging, and bibliographic indexing of all publications and sound recordings published or produced in Germany since 1913 (in future this will also include video tapes and electronic publications), all publications in the German language published or otherwise produced abroad since 1913, all translations of German language publications published or otherwise produced in other languages since 1913, all foreign-language publications about Germany published or otherwise produced abroad since 1913, and printed works published or authored by German-speaking emigrants from 1933 to 1945." The stated missions of these sample national libraries contrast with the Library of Congress mission statement in several ways: 7 Their focus on national, not international collections 7 Their aim to facilitate resource sharing among the nation's libraries 7 Their focus on published materials 7 Their focus on the use of technology 7 Their relationships with other national libraries. Although none of these representative national libraries encompasses all of the above, the scope of their missions are alternatives to the breadth of the current Library mission. Further, none of these national libraries professes to build a collection of "universal" scope. In this aspect, the Library of Congress is unique among the examined libraries. Results of the focus groups and interviews with senior professionals in the library community clearly acknowledged the current national library role. The national library community, in their focus group as well as in interviews, communicated a consensus that the national role is primary. Within the national role, the national library community views the Library of Congress as a leader and focal point in setting some standards in cataloging, classification, and other library issues. Focus group participants perceived a deterioration in the Library's national leadership role over the past decade. b. The Library of Congress has a significant international presence and has selectively engaged in international commitments. From the sample national library mission statements and through our interviews, we conclude that the international roles of national libraries have two distinguishing characteristics: 7 The scope of their international collections 7 Their role among other national libraries. Following World War II, the Library established a presence in Europe and elsewhere through acquisition agreements. The foreign language collections expanded to the present day to comprise approximately 50 percent of the Library's book collections and to constitute approximately 60 percent of the cataloging workload. The scope and extent of the Library's foreign language collections make the Library of Congress unique among the world's national libraries. Over the past several years, the Library has selectively engaged itself internationally. CRS has been funded to support library development for newly emerging democracies. This work has been completed. The Copyright Office has international presence in addressing intellectual property issues. In 1992 several national libraries, through the International Federation of Library Associations, identified focal points for critical library community issues. The Library of Congress chose to focus its preservation efforts in North America with Canada and Mexico, where the Library's leadership judged that it could more effectively implement preservation research and initiatives. The international library role was later assumed by the Bibliotheque Nationale de France. c. Focus group participants expressed diverse perspectives regarding the mission and priority products and services of the Library of Congress. Exhibit 2-3 presents a summary of the focus group members' assessment of critical mission elements and products/services of the Library. These assessments of the future missions are not presented as consensus perspectives. Rather, they include the perspectives of one or more of the focus group participants on mission focus and importance of products and services to the core Library mission. We use these perspectives to assess the implications of mission alternatives in later exhibits in this section. The groups disagreed on the Library's primary mission by constituencies: 7 Congress-Congressional staffers, Library executives 7 Nation-Library customers: Libraries, publishers, scholars, and others. The Federal library representatives identified the Library's role with them as critical and considered that role as separate from that with Congress. Each group identified the importance of both the congressional and national roles in the Library's mission. EXHIBIT 2-3 Mission Assessment Focus Group Mission Focus/Critical Elements Most Critical Products/Services Least Critical Products/Services Congressional Staff 7 Congress primary 7 National role important but secondary 7 Critical mission elements - Universal collection - Archive 7 Congressional research 7 Reference services - Congress - Public 7 Language translation 7 LC classification 7 Collection - Acquisition - Maintenance 7 Public research 7 Foreign law research 7 Copyright registration 7 Interlibrary loan 7 Special publications 7 Exhibits, performances 7 National Digital Library Library of Congress Senior Executives 7 Congress primary 7 National and world roles important 7 Critical mission elements - Universal Collections - Knowledge Generation 7 Library leadership, coordination and facilitation roles 7 Congressional research Reference services for Congress 7 Language translation 7 Foreign law research 7 Copyright registration 7 LC classification 7 Cataloging 7 Collection - Acquisition - Maintenance 7 National Digital Library 7 Public reference 7 Special publications 7 Exhibits, performances 7 Photoduplication Libraries, Associations, Publishers, Scholars 7 National role primary 7 Congressional role important 7 World role important 7 Critical mission elements 7 Library/publishing network leadership role 7 Library of last resort 7 Dealing with new forms of knowledge, information, and services 7 Collection building 7 Congressional research 7 Reference 7 Cataloging 7 Interlibrary Loan 7 Classification (LC and Dewey) 7 Catalog Distribution Service 7 Copyright 7 Blind and Physically Handicapped Services 7 Collections - Acquisition - Maintenance 7 Translation services 7 Research 7 Exhibits, performances 7 Visitor services 7 Publishing Federal Libraries 7 Federal Government, tied to Congress, primary 7 National role is critical 7 LC centralized coordinating role 7 Critical Mission Elements - Collection building - Leadership - Service to libraries - Accessibility 7 Congressional research 7 FEDLINK 7 Cataloging 7 Interlibrary loan 7 LC classification 7 Technology-based Services 7 Collections - Acquisition - Maintenance 7 Center for the Book 7 Exhibits, performances 7 Visitor services 7 Retail marketing 7 American Folklife Center d. Study participants perceived that the Library of Congress' national role should be strengthened. From the interviews, focus groups, and site visits, study participants strongly supported the dual congressional-national mission of the Library. They said that an international role and universal collection should be carefully defined. There was a strong view that the Library is defining its mission role to Congress too narrowly. Several participants felt that by restricting the congressional role to members of Congress and their staffs, the Library is not recognizing that many groups and individuals throughout the United States originate, stimulate, and contribute to defining and developing national policy issues and decisions. Participants stated that the Library needs to recognize that whereas Congress may be its primary constituency, it must also recognize and effectively work with its multiple customers and stakeholders. The national library community identified three specific mission-related issues: 7 The Library's national leadership role in emerging library issues and technologies 7 Library-specific methods versus collaborative ones with other organizations for providing access to information and avoiding redundancy 7 Library of Congress fundraising as competitive with public library funding. The national library community representatives in focus groups and interviews stated that the Library's historic role of national library leadership has deteriorated. The library community representatives stated that this role is critical in the future to deal with rapidly evolving technology and information issues. No other organization is providing this leadership. Participants stated that the Library of Congress must redefine itself as the major power among many other national and international library networks. By not doing so, participants felt that the Library of Congress was missing major opportunities to make use of its capabilities and expertise. Interviewees and focus group participants identified that using the extensive network of resources available, would strengthen the Library's ability to develop its projects into long-term programs. Some Library initiatives were perceived as being insular and potentially redundant. The participants identified the need for greater collaboration with other library and government organizations to address specific initiatives or issues. An example was public access to legislative information. The Library and the Government Printing Office (GPO) have competing products for distributing congressional information. THOMAS is the Library's on-line public access system for legislative information, and Thorplus is GPO and Purdue University's user-friendly interface for disseminating legislative information through the internet. This suggests that opportunities for efficiencies through collaboration are being lost. The Library has embarked on enthusiastic fundraising efforts for the NDL and other products and services. The national library community views these efforts as competing for the funds it is receiving from local and national sources. Study participants identified a need for the Library of Congress to collaborate in initiatives and questioned the public fundraising role within the Library's mission. e. A strong perception exists among the U.S. library community that the Library of Congress is not well positioned to address the unique library challenges and opportunities created by dynamic advances in digital information, communication, and storage technologies. The national library community represented in the focus groups and interviews described a rapidly changing library environment strongly influenced by digital information technologies. Participants saw future library capabilities, functions, and work processes being transformed by digital technologies. Participants described a much more volatile information and publishing environment already being influenced by on- line storage, distribution, and access to information. Traditional library functions such as cataloging, storage, and preservation may require radically new approaches to effectively respond to new information environments. Participants emphasized the need for balance between traditional library methods and pursuing the opportunities presented by the new technologies. Participants generally recognized that no single institution could effectively address the need for new approaches, standards, guidelines, and principles in the new digital environment and that collaboration among all relevant stakeholders was the only appropriate method for defining and addressing these issues. U.S. libraries have already established consortia that are beginning to define and address issues associated with library digitization, as are commercial organizations. The perception among the library community is that the Library of Congress is not inclined to take a leadership role in these types of collaborative efforts in the library community nor, in the participants' view, are the technology capabilities available within the Library of Congress. The large majority of participants perceived that Library of Congress messages regarding NDL have hindered a national dialogue. All participants felt that the Library of Congress should have a leadership role in these efforts, not as a decision maker but as partner and catalyst. 5. Several alternative missions and roles could be considered to shape the future of the Library. Based on our research and focus group results, we have defined alternative missions and roles for the Library. Three missions address the expanding scope of the Library as directly supporting Congress, the nation, and the world community of libraries, publishers, and scholars. Exhibit 2-4 presents the three mission alternatives. EXHIBIT 2-4 Library Of Congress Alternative Missions Mission A: Library of Congress Description Characteristics Focuses the Library's functions toward the original role of serving as the Library of Congress, essentially a collection limited to broadly defined congressional needs and federal government plus CRS-like research. Other functions go elsewhere or disappear, for example, public outreach. There would be no national library. Leadership of the information/library community would be missing or seized by others. (Some commentators believe that the national library role is more important than the congressional library role.) Mission B: Library of Congress/Nation Description Characteristics Views the Library's role as a national one with some limits on interpretation and cultural programs which may be placed elsewhere, e.g., exhibits, displays. National Library role would be formally acknowledged and the Library's leadership/partnering role strengthened. This mission would require increased interaction with national constituencies. A variation of this mission would preserve the Congressional Collection/CRS role as in Mission A, but create another institution to serve as the National Library and fulfill the bulk of the present collection and other Library functions. Mission C: Library of Congress/Nation/World Description Characteristics Fulfills the words of the mission statement of October 1995. The terms "make . . . useful" and "universal collection" are particularly powerful in legitimizing expanded interpretation and collection programs, the latter including materials in many languages and from many countries. With this acknowledged global scope, the size of the collection expands enormously, with accompanying translation and processing consequences. Throughout its history, the Library has also evolved in response to competing visions of its proper role as the Nation's library: 7 A unique, independent institution offering a single comprehensive collection of the Nation's creative works to be used by Congress and the American people 7 The center of a network of American libraries, a focal point for providing other libraries with cataloging and bibliographic services.8 The emphasis of these roles has evolved, dependent on the Library's leadership and funding, to a current expectation that the Library can effectively fulfill both roles. This tension, coupled with expanding national and international scopes and constrained funding, results in a need for the reconsideration of the Library's mission scope and roles. As a basis for assessment and consideration, we have redefined these contrasting roles as follows: 7 Independent archive/knowledge developer-focused on independent collection building and constituent support 7 Information/knowledge broker-focused on a cooperative/collaborative focal point role among networks of U.S. and other national libraries and publishers. Exhibit 2-5 further describes these alternative roles. These two roles and their associated mission dimensions provide the framework for an assessment of the future Library mission and roles. Congressional and Library of Congress participants in this study assessed the current and projected Library role as that of an independent archive/knowledge developer providing a useful resource for the congressional, national, and, to some extent, international audiences. Within the broader national and international communities, participants identified a critical need for the Library of Congress to assume a stronger leadership or catalyst role through collaborative partnering relationships both nationally and internationally. Defining the future missions and roles for the Library requires identification and consideration of the implications among alternatives. The following sections summarize significant implications and impacts among these various alternatives. EXHIBIT 2-5 Library Of Congress Alternative Roles Role 1: Independent Archive/Knowledge Developer Description Characteristics The Library would continue to develop and manage collections independently in Library and other Federal government facilities. Traditional original cataloging and research or development functions would be performed primarily by Library functional components and staff. Library collections and facility requirements continue to expand rapidly based on collection strategy and policies. Traditional areas of Library expertise, acquisitions, cataloging, and preservation, continue to grow in importance and are the force behind future staffing requirements. Future technologies are strongly influenced by internal operational needs and are supported by constituent capabilities. Role 2: Collaborative Information/Knowledge Broker Description Characteristics This would change the Library's principal role from being a custodian of collections with an independent operational role to a comprehensive broker or referral agency. The Library would initiate collaborative and cooperative relationships with other libraries, consortia, and the like. It would use computer communications technology to tell an inquirer which library in the nation or world has the specific information. This mission would be facilitated by index/pointer systems and data transmission techniques to enable timely access to documents and information. The present Library collection would be dealt with by selective retention and/or transfer to other institutions with arrangements for appropriate preservation. These institutions are likely to be well-established research libraries at universities. Other participating institutions would need to demonstrate their willingness and capability to participate in such a system, especially those that would be responsible for collecting, storing, and providing a specified class of information. Apart from the system interconnection, the functions of such institutions would be conceptually similar to those performed independently today by the national libraries of agriculture and of medicine. In considering the volume of data to be transmitted under this mission, it should be recognized that the bulk of the documents that are needed by a requester located remotely from the document storage location could be shipped physically by regular or express mail. Even with massive digitization, many books will never be digitized. 6. Alternative missions and roles would have different impacts on the Library's resources, products, and services and on its organization, constituencies, and funding. From the focus groups, interviews, research, and analysis of current operations, we have identified potential implications and consequences associated with the mission and role alternatives. Assessments of impacts on the following are presented as exhibits: 7 Resources: Collections, Facilities, Human Resources, and Technology (Exhibit 2-6) 7 Products and services (Exhibit 2-7) 7 Relative resource requirements (Exhibit 2-8) 7 Organizational components (Exhibit 2-9) 7 Customers and constituencies (Exhibit 2-10). As the reader examines these exhibits, the complexity of making comparative assessments becomes apparent. The evaluator wants both more detail for each assessment dimension and a way of simplifying the comparison across all dimensions and alternative missions and roles. We have sought a balance that would allow us to reach directional judgments on alternatives: more or less, better or worse, and the like. Even more fundamental to comparing alternative missions for the Library is the understanding and viewpoint one holds on the role of libraries in society. For those who give to libraries a major role in the preservation, organization, and provision of information in the emerging "information age," Role 1 will likely be unattractive-national leadership is simply imperative. Those principally concerned with serving the Congress are likely to be concerned with the possible distraction from that role that is inherent in Role 2, collaborative information/knowledge broker. Exhibit 2-6 illustrates that the implications for current library resources among the missions and roles differ both in kind and degree among the alternatives. The alternatives nearest to current Library functioning are the Congress/Nation scope and the archive/knowledge developer role. Currently, the Library also has a significant international role that is selectively applied. Resource implications range from a focus on and consolidation of the congressional mission to expansion of resources and capabilities into a full international role. Adopting the broker role in a significant way will require new skills and capabilities in staff and technology to utilize existing Library capabilities to create and work in collaborative networks. EXHIBIT 2-6 Implications for Library Resources Mission Collections Facilities Human Resources Technology A. Library of Congress % Focused development strategy-legal, economic, historical; journals/ serials % Evolutionary repositioning of national collections % Facilities reduced as national collections are repositioned % Increase in off-site storage facilities requirement as collections are repositioned % Reduced staff, with increased research emphasis % Lose cataloging/ classification and standards expertise/ leadership 7 Leveraged technology to do work focused on networks and media 7 GLIN providing platform for innovation B. Library of Congress/ Nation % Management capacity-collection development strategy focused through cooperative alliances-U.S. and other national libraries % Focus foreign language and/or English language collections to capacity % Selectively build special collections % Management capacity-stable to growing by collection development strategy % Critical nature of environmentally controlled facilities and preservation technologies % Some shift in staff skills/capabilities from technical to integrated technical/standard setting/ functional library leadership % Critical nature of knowledge/capture and training strategies for current staff 7 Criticality of overall information technology strategy 7 Catalyst/leader within national/ international library communities 7 Research and development (R&D) role in technology use for knowledge development 7 Technology used to create and disseminate information C. Library of Congress/ Nation/World % Expansion of global collections-foreign language % Focus on extended collections through international alliances and catalyst role % LC leadership/ catalyst in global collection development and research % More, smaller international locations % Potentially growing centralized requirements % Criticality of environmentally controlled facilities and preservation technologies % Expansion of foreign language capabilities and staff % Expansion of staff to address global issues 7 Expansion of technology capabilities to include global networking and physical distribution 7 Significant international role in evolving technology and library applications. Multiple-language technologies 7 Enabling innovations in library functions-cataloging and preservation (especially digital formats) EXHIBIT 2-6 (cont.) Implications for Library Resources Role Collections Facilities Human Resources Technology 1. Archive/ Knowledge Developer 7 Current collections expansion rates limited by facilities, staff, and technology capabilities 7 Capacity management-criticality of collection development strategy and policies to balance facilities, staff, and financial resources 7 Expanding facilities requirements 7 Need for innovative facilities solutions to respond to capacity and preservation requirements 7 Focus on traditional library functional expertise-acquisitions, cataloging, preservation, and others. 7 Use of staff to identify/implement work streamlining opportunities 7 Training strategy to develop staff capabilities in operational technologies 7 Focus technology to do operational work 7 Internal requirements for operational performance collection management and public access objectives as causative factors 2. Information/ Knowledge Broker % Focus of collection development strategy on extended, cooperative networks % Stabilizing or contracting of centralized collections would occur over time % Gradually contracting as centralized collections are focused and as cooperative, decentralized collections are established % Increased requirement to manage/support decentralized location of facilities % Increased square footage requirement % Fewer staff as operating functions are decentralized through cooperative agreements % Concentration of staff capabilities on policy, standards, education, leadership, negotiation, as well as technical 7 Becomes key element of broker/leader role in a variety of technologies such as information/ communication, preservation, and facilities The following exhibits, 2-7 through 2-10, present judgmental impact assessments of alternative mission and role decisions for the Library of Congress. These assessments of impact are comparative assessments to 1996 levels of resource commitment (funding and staff) in relative characterizations as more, same, less and/or transfer. These assessments are made for three mission emphases-Congress/Nation/World, and two contrasting roles-Archive/Knowledge Developer, Information/Knowledge Broker. Each mission emphasis implies a refocusing of resources in products/services, organizational components, and specified constituencies. Exclusive focus on service to Congress would represent a contraction in Library mission. The Congress/Nation mission would result in refocusing the Library's product/service emphasis within its current resource base. The Congress/Nation/World mission represents an expansion with additional resource requirements. The two roles, Archive/Knowledge Developer and Information/Knowledge Broker, imply differing levels of resource requirements. The current Archive/Knowledge Developer role will require expanding resources to support collections and service growth constrained by budgets and streamlining. An Information/Knowledge Broker role would require decreased resources over time as current Library activities are performed through collaborative U.S. and international relationships, and technology and innovation provide stronger collections, library, and information infrastructures. These characteristics of each alternative provide the basis for the assessment presented in the following sections. The range of Library products and services is broad as shown in Exhibits 2-3 and 2-7. The effects of the alternative missions and roles include the following: 7 Congress - Increased focus and support to Congress and the Federal government - Reduction or elimination and transfer of national constituency products or services from the Library of Congress 7 Congress/Nation - Reduction of low-priority products or services identified through focus groups or interviews 7 Congress/Nation/World - Reduction of low-priority products or services - Expansion of collections, cataloging, classification, and critical library capabilities as the Library's global role expands 7 Archive/Knowledge Developer - Reduction of low-priority products or services - Increased preservation needs or capabilities. 7 Information/Knowledge Broker - Reduction and/or transfer of traditional library functional capabilities - Increased skill and technology capabilities to build human, physical, and technology networks. EXHIBIT 2-7 Impact on Products and Services Product/Service Mission Role A-Congress B-Nation C-World 1-Archive 2-Broker Congressional Research Reference Legislative Information Systems (THOMAS, LC MARVEL) Translation Services Law Library GLIN FEDLINK Federal Library & Information Center Committee (FLICC) Federal Research Interlibrary Loan Copyright Cataloging Catalog Distribution Service Collections Acquisition Collections Management Dewey Classification LC Classification Preservation NDL Center for the Book Cultural Performances Exhibits and Displays Visitor Services Retail Marketing American Folklife Center Publishing Special Projects Books/Machines for the Blind and Physically Handicapped Photoduplication Legend More Same Less Transfer None Exhibit 2-8 illustrates that the resource requirements reflect an assessment of the relative scope of each of the alternatives. The Congress/Nation and Archive/Knowledge Developer alternatives are a close representation of the Library's operations and role. Library funding in constant dollars since 1980, although somewhat cyclical, has declined about 3 to 4 percent. Funded full-time equivalent (FTE) positions have decreased by approximately 12 percent, from 4,818 in 1980 to 4,214 in 1996.9 EXHIBIT 2-8 Relative Resource Requirements Mission Relative Resource Requirements Compared to Today's Annual Appropriation of $350 Million A. Library of Congress Much less B. Library of Congress/Nation Same C. Library of Congress/ Nation/World More Role 1. Archive/Knowledge Developer Same 2. Information/Knowledge Broker Less10 In an environment of contracting financial and human resources, streamlining, and downsizing, strategically focusing available resources is essential. The financial resource effects of the alternative missions and roles directly relate to the conceptions of missions and roles. The Congress/Nation mission and Archive/Knowledge Developer roles are approximately similar to current requirements with some reduction in low- priority products and services to accommodate resource and staffing reductions. Focusing resources on the Library's role to Congress could reduce funding requirements substantially by consolidating and focusing resources and moving national collections to alternative libraries. An expansion of the scope to a more formal global role could require significant additional resources for collections and for developing international capabilities. The Information/Knowledge Broker role would result in decreased funding requirements in the intermediate term (5 to 10 years) as the Library develops its technology and leadership capabilities to create opportunities for new ways of working and for using the capabilities and expertise of networks of libraries and publishers. Exhibit 2-9 shows the assessment of the impact of mission and role alternatives on the major library organizational components. EXHIBIT 2-9 Impact of Alternatives on the Funding of Library's Organizational Components The Congress/Nation mission and Archive/Knowledge Developer role are the closest to current operations with some downsizing of lower-priority cultural affairs activities identified by review participants. The first row of the exhibit shows approximate FY 1995 funding for each major organizational component using appropriated funding. As the reader can deduct from the exhibit, approximately 50 percent of the funding of the Library goes to collections management processes and functional support services, including technology. Streamlining and/or making the most of the processes and capabilities can provide opportunities for funding further development. Intermediate-term opportunities for streamlining collection management processes may be realized by focusing on the congressional mission and by focusing collections appropriately and by using outside resources through the Information/Knowledge Broker role. A broker/facilitator role as well as national and world roles would require the capabilities of technology and support services (contracting, logistics, audit, and the like). The impact of the mission and role alternatives requires consideration of four major groups of constituents-Congress; Federal libraries and government agencies; the library, publishing, and scholarly communities; and other major constituencies, including the general public. Refocusing resources through the selection or definition of the scope (Congress, Nation, or the World) will provide additional resources or services to the appropriate congressional, national, or international constituencies as shown in Exhibit 2-10. The Information/Knowledge Broker role could provide additional capabilities or services to the national and international networks and make use of the resources of other institutions. Specific public constituencies may receive reduced direct services from the Library; however, overall support and service should be expanded through the network of libraries, publishers, and other institutions. Exhibit 2-10 Impact of Mission or Role Alternatives on Customers and Constituents 2.1.4 Current and Future Mission Recommendation The Library's current mission should be focused and delimited within the Congress/Nation mission, and planning should begin toward a future mission of serving Congress and performing as a national Information/Knowledge Broker. The Library's dual mission to serve the Congress and the nation is broadly recognized and has evolved to constitute the legitimate mission of the Library of Congress as identified in each focus group and interview. Within the national mission context, participants in this assessment consistently identified a rapidly changing technology environment, advances in digitization, and the need for the Library's leadership and collaboration in addressing critical research, standards, and classification issues that are not being addressed. Additionally, participants clearly recognized the need to systematically limit and consolidate the Library's global role. The majority of study participants identified opportunities for Library partnering and collaborative relationships and the use of new technology capabilities to make the most of existing Library capabilities and develop needed ones. Current Mission As documented elsewhere in this report and in the 1996 testimony of the Librarian of Congress and his principal colleagues before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations, the Library's resources and management infrastructure are sorely stretched to perform the current congressional and national missions. Accordingly, unless more resources can be provided and the infrastructure substantially strengthened, services to Congress should continue as the main priority. To address resource issues, the following candidate areas, as identified through interviews and focus groups, might be reduced: 7 Acquisition of selected special collections 7 Foreign acquisitions 7 Selected English language acquisitions 7 Original cataloging 7 Cultural affairs activities, exhibits, displays, and performances. The criteria for identifying reductions in each of these areas must be developed based on risk and the availability of alternatives; however, our review identified these as offering real opportunities for reductions. Further, the current mission statement might be revised to read: The Library's mission is to make knowledge available and useful to Congress and available to the American people and to provide leadership in creating networks of institutions that enable the world's knowledge resources to be shared. instead of The Library's mission is to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations. Addressing the issues identified throughout this report in national leadership, human resources, facilities, and security, the Library needs to move rapidly to develop collaborative relationships with its primary constituencies-public and research libraries, publishers, national libraries, and film producers-and to identify and address major library community issues. This effort requires an increased emphasis on Library initiatives that have been developing in recent years (cooperative and copy cataloging, collections and resource sharing, and others) to most effectively utilize its existing workforce capabilities and also to reduce its operational activities associated with collection building. These collaborative efforts should be accompanied by a clear strategy for collection development that builds upon them. It appears that this collaborative broker strategy could result in freeing significant resources in traditional library operations over the next few years. Future Mission The future mission of the Library of Congress will derive from three principal developments: 7 Information is increasing in both volume and the role it plays in society 7 Technology for information handling-recording, storing, transmitting, and presenting-is becoming more powerful and widespread 7 Society will increasingly need and seek institutions to provide better access to, and usability of, information. The Library of Congress as the recognized "Nation's Library" is well- positioned to occupy a leadership role in guiding the development and coordinating the functioning of networks of distributed information. The networks would connect users with the facility that is custodian of the desired information. The Library would be a kind of electronic broker, controlling standards, access protocols, and classification and indexing systems. It would not be the custodian of the information, that is, it would not have a comprehensive collections role. Collections would be largely decentralized to other institutions, probably by subject matter and/or format. This mission concept would involve a huge undertaking, the implementation of which would occur over a period of 10 to 20 years. It would require both institutional and technological coordination of massive proportions. It could be undertaken incrementally as participating institutions were brought on-line. A new and changed mission requires the thoughtful and thorough examination and debate that the Library's heritage deserves. To help accomplish this, the Librarian needs to take the lead by preparing a detailed plan that outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the recommended mission and role, as well as of other possible alternatives. Then, all the affected stakeholders-Congress, Government agencies, state and local governments, libraries, publishers, information handling businesses, and others-should be invited to join in examining the pros and cons. At the end of this process, the chosen mission of the Library of Congress should be affirmed in law and the level of resources should be provided that will enable the Library's future to be as distinguished as its past. 2.2 ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT PROCESSES The examination of institutional management processes at the Library stems from concerns raised internally and externally about the direction and management of the institution. External observers of the Library, including Congress, have identified specific issues relating to human resources, facilities planning, and security. In addition, Congress has raised concerns about overall Library management and the ability of the Library to rectify specific issues and, more importantly, to provide the institution with a clear, comprehensive management approach for future operations. 2.2.1 Background In order to explore these concerns more fully, GAO requested BoozaAllen to examine the institution-wide processes for managing the Library of Congress, particularly in the area of institutional integrated planning and program execution. The areas of concern that GAO asked BoozaAllen to address include the following: 7 Planning, including policy and strategy development, and budgeting and resource allocation 7 Execution, including executive decision making and problem solving, accountability, roles and responsibilities and communication 7 Performance tracking, measurement, and evaluation. 2.2.2 Methodology In order to examine the key Library-wide management processes, BoozaAllen developed an approach that combined Library management's description of the processes through interviews with review of available documentation of the management processes and their products. 7 Interviews-We employed structured interviews, informational meetings, and follow-up discussions to collect information from Library personnel. For the assessment of management processes, we conducted more than 50 interviews, including interviews with senior Library managers from across the institution, middle managers in service units, and selected staff members. Meetings included such people as the Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Acting Deputy Librarian, Associate Librarians, Chief of Staff, executive-level managers, service unit heads, division chiefs, committee and working group chairpersons, special assistants, senior professionals from across the Library and congressional staff. Multiple follow-up sessions were conducted in person and by telephone. 7 Document Collection and Analysis-We gathered documents from all parts and levels of the Library, including the Office of the Librarian, from service units, and from the files of the Records Management Section. Documents reviewed included budget guidance, budget justification and plans, Library-wide planning documentation, executive committee minutes and agenda, internal memoranda, and published information. Additional reviews included congressional testimony, formal announcements, budgets, annual reports, published plans, regulations, project files, bulletins, and newsletters. We supplemented documentation regarding Library-wide processes with supporting documentation from Library line and staff organizations. We focused our document review on information particularly covering the 1991 to 1995 time frame. 2.2.3 Findings and Conclusions This section presents findings and conclusions resulting from BoozaAllen's study of management and planning processes at the Library of Congress in 12 parts. 1. At the corporate level, the Library of Congress has in place some of the key elements of an integrated planning and program execution process, but this process is not comprehensive nor has it been institutionalized. In assessing the management processes of the Library, BoozaAllen compared the process descriptions and documentation provided by the Library to a conceptual model of an integrated planning and program execution system. Exhibit 2-11 depicts the conceptual framework BoozaAllen applied to assess the completeness and adequacy of the Library's planning and program execution processes. This process has six key elements: 7 Strategic planning, which includes the articulation of mission and vision and explicit goals and objectives 7 Tactical, operating, or annual program planning, which develops near- term (annual) action plans for implementing strategic plan direction 7 Budget development, which ensures that budget allocation decisions are based on strategic goals and annual operating plans 7 Program execution, which ensures the delivery of services and programs 7 Performance measures, which capture organizational results in terms of both outcome and process, and provide targets of performance against those measures 7 Feedback, monitoring, and evaluation, which ensure that all aspects of the planning and program execution process are integrated and implemented in an efficient and effective manner. In addition to showing the key aspects of the planning and program execution process, Exhibit 2-11 depicts the following enabling processes that support the system: 7 Processes for establishing accountability and determining roles and responsibilities 7 Processes for decision making and communication. The exhibit has been annotated to display major Library efforts since 1988 in each of the key elements. These are discussed in turn below. EXHIBIT 2-11 Key Components of an Integrated Planning and Program Execution Process 2. Although the Library of Congress has initiated several corporate level strategic planning activities since 1988, the process for establishing and revisiting strategic plans is not consistent or formalized. The Library has initiated four institution-wide strategic planning activities over the last several years. These are as follows: 7 The Management and Planning Committee (MAP), its resulting report and transition teams (1988-89) 7 The Library Strategic Plan (1992) 7 The Management Retreat (1994) 7 The Mission and Strategic Priorities statement (1995). Our analysis of the process and associated documentation for these four activities demonstrates that the participation, purpose, and timing for each of these efforts vary significantly, as shown in Exhibit 2-12. EXHIBIT 2-12 Characteristics of Library Strategic Planning Activities Activity Participants Purpose Time Frame MAP Broad-based participation through staff-led team Develop and implement recommendations regarding Library direction and operations Developed over 1 year, 1988-89, followed by an 8-month implementation. Library Strategic Plan Management team Develop strategic plan document Published in December 1992. Developed over several months. Management Retreat Management team Develop action plans and an integrated planning process Held a weekend retreat in November, 1994; follow-up was done over several months. Mission and Strategic Priorities Statement Librarian, Executive Committee Clarify mission and priorities Published in October 1995 after review and comment by the Executive Committee. 7 The MAP process was staff led and broadly inclusive. The MAP Committee included a group of 29 Library personnel who met over the course of 1988. Their November 1988 report began with statements of mission and vision and outlined 108 recommendations for organizational change. Transition teams formed to implement MAP recommendations, which culminated in the October 1, 1989 reorganization of the Library of Congress. 7 The Strategic Plan was developed by the Management Team,11 a group of approximately 20 senior managers, and focused on completion of a strategic plan document. It is divided into two phases: Phase I, 1993 1996, modernizing the Library in Washington, and Phase II, 1997 2000, building the Library of the future. The document articulates a vision for the future for the collections, service to Congress, and service to the public. It also sets priorities and identifies potential efficiencies for collections, human resources, facilities, financial resources, technologies, an electronic library, and public programs. 7 The Management Retreat of November 1994, attended by the Management Team, focused on the development of action plans for specific issue areas. It was the first Library-wide effort to reaffirm and refocus on operational implementation of the 1992 strategic plan. The retreat was intended to build an operational framework for change, continuous improvement, implementation of the Library's strategic plan, budget decisions, and linking service unit plans to the strategic plan. It focused on three infrastructure concerns: human resources, technology, and space, and other problem areas including planning and its implementation. 7 The Librarian developed the Library of Congress Mission and Strategic Priorities, included as Appendix A, in conjunction with the Executive Committee. It was published on October 27, 1995, in The Gazette,12 broadly distributed within the Library, and issued on the Internet. This brief statement includes four sections: mission, strategic priorities, enabling infrastructure, and implications. Its purpose is to disseminate the Library's priorities to a broad audience. Review of Library planning documents and associated memoranda indicate that the four major strategic planning efforts identified recurrent issues such as arrearage reduction, security, and support services, as shown in Exhibit 2-13. Many of the issues treated in MAP recommendations, for example, were also mentioned in the 1992 Strategic Plan and were part of the Management Retreat. In some cases, such as arrearages, this recurrent focus produced results. In other cases, such as human resources, technology, and facilities, repeated issue identification over time has not met with similar resolution and progress. EXHIBIT 2-13 Library-Wide Planning Efforts Identify Recurring Themes Strategic Planning Milestone Themes/Content Results MAP Committee and Transition Team One-hundred eight recommendations in many areas, including management and planning processes, collections security, arrearages, and enabling infrastructure (technology, human resources, facilities, and security). The October 1989 reorganization resulted, creating Constituent and Collections Services and setting arrearage reduction as a primary goal. Progress in infrastructure areas was elusive. Strategic Plan A two-phased vision of the Library's future, description of institutional strengths and opportunities, and some specific objectives. A continued focus on arrearage reduction resulted. The National Digital Library (NDL) effort was created. Infrastructure continues to be an issue. Management Retreat Assessment of progress against and reaffirmation of the strategic plan; focus on human resources, facilities, and technology. Action plans were developed but their implementation was not tracked. Planning guidance was developed, but not adopted. Mission and Strategic Priorities Statement Restatement of Library mission and proposal of four strategic priorities; mention of the criticality of the infrastructure. This document was widely disseminated, but it is too early to assess its impact. The Library does not have a regular time frame or schedule for its strategic planning efforts. From our review, the impetus for most of the strategic planning efforts appears to be external events, rather than a regular examination of strategy and progress against plan. 7 1988 MAP-After Dr. Billington's appointment 7 1992 Strategic Plan-After the congressional request 7 1994 Management Retreat-After the arrival of the new Deputy Librarian 7 1995 Mission and Priorities-After congressional hearings. In our review of the planning documents stemming from each of the four planning events, we did not identify a clear link from one planning event or document to the next, with the exception of the 1994 Management Retreat. Using the 1989 MAP report as the starting point, we assessed each of the planning documents to determine how it related formally to the efforts that had gone before: 7 The 1992 Strategic Plan is a deliberate attempt to start fresh and, as such, did not formally link to the 1989 MAP report 7 The 1994 Management Review does begin with a review of the 1992 Strategic Plan 7 The 1995 Mission and Priorities does not formally refer to the 1992 Strategic Plan or the 1994 Management Review. The lack of clear, identifiable linkage from one strategic planning effort to the next is an impediment to the effectiveness of planning efforts. The strategic planning process does not document the rationale and progress (or changes in direction) made, both of which are key components to the assessment of priorities and allocation of resources. The lack of a systematic process for assessing progress contributes to the confusion regarding future direction and strategy of the Library voiced by many members of Library management in our interviews. 3. The institution-wide strategic planning efforts have provided high- level mission, vision, and priorities, but they are not supported by a formal institution-wide annual operating, tactical, or program planning process. An annual operating or program plan, which provides the tactical basis for the implementation of the strategic plan, forms the second major step in an integrated planning and program execution process. Although the Library has initiated two operating planning efforts, as shown in Exhibit 2-11, it has not developed an institutional process for translating mission, vision and priorities into an annual operating plan for the entire organization. In our interviews and analysis of the planning documents provided to us, we found only two instances of operating planning. The MAP report was followed by transition teams, which developed action plans for the recommendations. Although the transition teams developed action plans for the entire MAP report, not all of these action plans were carried through. For example, of the 108 MAP recommendations, the MAP committee determined 43 to be of high priority. Examination of these recommendations indicates that in some cases, such as establishment of arrearage reduction as a primary goal and other collections-related areas, the Library has made significant progress. In other areas, however, such as basic services, planning, budgeting and cost, and human resources, the MAP recommendations still stand. The reorganization plan developed by the MAP transition team was also implemented. The Management Retreat was followed by development of specific plans for human resources, space, and information technology (IT). The organization responsible for each area developed action plans to address systemic and historical concerns about infrastructure. The action plans for the Management Retreat included the recommended actions, priority, responsible party, and targeted completion date. The subsequent Information Technology Service (ITS) working group responded to the concerns of the Library senior management by stating, "Certainly a number of the issues identified are real while some are issues of perception and/or lack knowledge of operational details. We did not feel our team should be captive to this particular listing of issues." 13 The ITS plan provided target completion dates for 14 of the 48 actions and used terms such as "continuing, underway, ongoing," or blank spaces for the remaining majority of the actions. It routinely uses the terms "exists, underway, or in strategic plan" instead of specifying a responsible officer or subunit for implementing and tracking the initiative. The experience for Human Resources and facilities was similar-significant effort and consensus surrounding issue identification was followed by inattention to follow-up and implementation. The Library has developed operating plans for specific issues of major concern in some cases. Arrearage reduction, described in the case study in Volume 2, is an example of an issue for which, once identified as a priority in the MAP strategic planning process, tactical plans were developed, tracked, revised, and implemented. Plans were also developed for high-priority issues such as security, but not consistently implemented or tracked. Despite recurrent planning activity and implementation of numerous separate initiatives, security continues to be a major source of concern for Library observers. Security plans are explained in the case study in Volume 2. In the case of facilities planning and the Fort Meade project, a lack of strong planning, analysis, and justification of requirements failed to cause action. The case study in Volume 2 examines the Fort Meade project in greater detail. In the human resources area, plans exist for internal operations of the human resources service unit, but do not integrate those services with Library needs. Library management develops plans for priorities arising from the outside. Follow-through occurs on an ad hoc basis. In cases where a strong focal point for coordination has been designated, such as arrearage reduction, follow-through is more deliberate. Overall, the lack of an explicit annual operational or program planning process hinders the Library's ability to ensure, on an institution-wide basis, that it has implemented its strategic plan and priorities and achieved its goals. As a result, several managers interviewed expressed uncertainty regarding how Library strategy applied to them or their organizations. 4. The Library has a complete budget process, but it is not consistently or explicitly linked to the strategic plan. The third piece of the model of an integrated planning and program execution process is the budget and resource allocation process, as shown in Exhibit 2-11. Our analysis of documentation supporting the Library of Congress' annual budget process found that the Library has structured its approach for formulating, justifying, and executing the budget to respond to existing requirements of the Federal budget process. The Library has not yet gone further, however, and directly linked the budget process to the execution of the Library's strategic goals. Detailed examination of financial management processes is the subject of the Price Waterhouse study and is not considered here. The lack of operating detail in the Library's strategic planning efforts, which should come in an annual operating plan, creates the difficulty in using the strategy to guide the Library's budget decisions. Annual program or operating plans should provide a means for connecting strategy with resource allocation and budget decisions by identifying resource implications of various courses of action. The Financial Services Directorate issues its annual budget call to service units in the spring of each year, directing each organization to develop its budget request based on Library priorities. These requests are presented to the Budget Review Committee for assessment and for review of institution-wide budget issues. They are generally based on adjustment of the previous year's budget to account for wage and price increases, rather than on assessment of resources required to meet Library mission and support its priorities. At the staff level, the Library has established the Budget Working Group, which serves as a cross -cutting mechanism for developing proposed budgets, justification, and tracking throughout the year. These two review groups, the Budget Review Committee and the Budget Working Group, are the primary mechanisms currently used for linking actual budget development to the strategic plan on an institution-wide basis. A review of the Library's budget over the past several years shows that the Library has obtained additional funding for high-priority objectives from the strategic plan, such as the reduction in arrearages, the development of the National Digital Library (NDL), and security. While the Library estimated, requested and received 164 additional FTEs to address arrearage reduction, the degree to which those positions have contributed to the resolution of the problem has not been quantitatively assessed. The estimated cost of the NDL pilot program is not part of a rigorous analysis of Library-wide impacts. For security, additional resources are requested for specific items, but not as part of a comprehensive, integrated security plan. Once funds are appropriated, changes to fund allocations are administered through a funds control process managed by service unit managers and compiled by the Financial Services Directorate. The quarterly status of funds review allows Library managers to track expenditures against plan and adjust or seek formal reprogramming authority accordingly. This process takes into account changing priorities or needs. The budget process does not provide detailed policy guidance regarding program direction. The Budget Working Group, which operates at the staff level, works through budget process implementation issues affecting multiple organizational units in the Library, and may eventually serve as a force for integration among service units. The role of the Financial Services Directorate is primarily compilation of budget data, preparation of justification materials, and monitoring of funds status. Their financial management role, supported by a regular planning process for the financial management systems at the Library, has not heretofore had a strong policy component. Service unit internal distribution of resources is the responsibility of line management. In addition, project-based or life-cycle cost estimates, not required by any Library policy or guidance but often part of resource planning efforts, can provide additional insight into the implementation of strategy. Without a process for developing institution-wide estimates for cross-cutting initiatives or for developing understanding of the costs of taking pilot projects to scale, the Library's strategy cannot be translated to budget in a comprehensive manner. The Library's budget is a one-year document based more on prior year expenditures than on resource requirements associated with a detailed program plan. It does not include out-year estimates, or multiyear planning profiles. In addition, because of the lack of a systems view and operational program planning approach to problem solving, identification of funds associated with specific projects or issues is difficult. For example, we could not readily identify resources across the Library system related to security. Many service units replicate aspects of support services, such as human resources and technology. These serve as examples of areas in which a systems-wide strategy for identifying needed resources would be useful. 5. Program execution occurs at the service unit level and is appropriately the responsibility of the service unit management. The fourth component of the integrated planning and program execution process is execution or the actual delivery of services and accomplishment of results. Our examination of program execution processes at the Library found that service units are responsible for and direct program execution and operating decisions with minimal involvement of the Library executive management. There is no widely accepted, established process for ensuring that Library mission and vision is a primary driver of program execution decisions. In cases of external attention or institutional concern, service unit heads are responsible for programmatic decisions in the absence of an effective corporate decision-making body. For security, for example, decisions to allocate budgeted resources to implement recommendations of the Library-wide security committee were at the service unit's discretion. The service units provide the focus for Library activity and are the basis for the implementation of its programs. Responsibility for translating Library-wide priorities and program-specific initiatives rests with service unit management. Service unit heads exercise autonomy in making decisions on the operation of their organizations. These include the responsibility for organizational structure and personnel assignments (subject to labor and human resources regulations and requirements), budget development, funds control, and program execution. In addition, leaders of service units and directorates are responsible for the management processes that guide their organizations. For major institutional issues, the Library frequently establishes committees or task forces drawn from across the Library. These committees and tasks forces are charged with developing recommendations, whereas implementation is the responsibility of service units and directorates, which determine the priorities of these recommendations based on their internal workloads and demands. For administrative matters, Library of Congress Regulations (LCRs) provide a structure for institutionalizing major policies and procedures. Although the Library has not developed a comprehensive process that links program execution to the strategic plan, it has made important strides to execute against several major concerns or priorities identified in its strategic planning efforts. Arrearage reduction, identified as a primary goal in the MAP report, continues as a priority. Activities in the electronic library area, such as the NDL effort, derive from the 1992 strategic plan. In other infrastructure support areas, including human resources, facilities and technology, Library personnel interviewed consistently point to lack of service delivery and reactive operating styles. Efforts to improve delivery of Library services and increase efficiency and effectiveness of program execution are numerous at the service unit and directorate level. The operational processes section of our report identifies process improvements found at the operating levels. Some of these internally generated initiatives are summarized in Appendix C. These performance improvement initiatives include, among others: 7 Efforts to reengineer business processes to improve productivity 7 Team based approaches to acquisition 7 Cooperative cataloging arrangements. While examples of innovation and productivity improvement efforts on the part of Library personnel in different parts of the organization are numerous, the Library lacks a process for systematizing the results of these undertakings or sharing experience across departments and services. 6. The Library approach to measuring performance does not adequately capture organizational results or provide systematic feedback regarding organizational performance. The fifth component of an integrated planning and program execution process, as depicted in Exhibit 2-11, is performance measurement, which provides information on the effectiveness of the operational plans and progress against the achievement of the strategic goals. At the Library, we found institutional attention to performance measurement in two areas: 7 The Key Indicators project, which is intended to build the key operating measures of the Library 7 Individual performance planning and appraisal processes, which measure key executives' contribution toward achieving the Library's strategic plan. According to the Library managers interviewed and documents reviewed, the purpose of the Key Indicators project is to provide the Library with key statistical indicators to monitor the Library's performance and accomplishment of its mission. The Library developed a three-phase approach to the Key Indicators project, depicted in Exhibit 2-14, and has implemented Phase I. EXHIBIT 2-14 Phases of the Key Indicators Project The first phase sought to establish a Library-wide system for the collection, reporting, consolidation, and distribution of statistical measures, and to make it routine. Phase II includes expansion and validation of the list of key indicators, establishment of reporting requirements, and development of publication procedures. Phase III includes development of ways to link key indicators to planning and execution of the Library's budget. Development of different types of measures to inform management decision making, establishing targets of performance against those measures, and comparing planned and actual results was not a primary component of the project. Phase I has been underway since 1991. The Phase I measures and data are summarized in Exhibit 2-15, and provide a good summary of workload statistics for the Library. However, Library's current key indicators do not provide strategic-level measures to guide organizational performance nor do these indicators permit assessment of actual organizational results against the strategic plan and goals. We determined that the Library key indicators are generally measures of workload rather than a means of tracking progress toward strategic goals and objectives. The operational processes section of our report further explains Library reporting systems. The Key Indicators project has not yet developed enough to be a system whereby Library strategic objectives are translated into observable and measurable outcomes or whereby performance is tracked with critical indicators that management uses to benchmark the success of functions and activities. Rather, the key indicators effectively capture transactions and workload information for inclusion in the Library's Annual Report and provision to Congress. EXHIBIT 2-15 Examples of Key Indicators Organizational Unit/Function Key Indicator Acquisitions Collections receipts, growth, copyright demands Arrearages Print or nonprint, comparisons to FY 1989 and last FY Collections Services Catalog record completed by type Congressional Research Service Requests, products Constituent Services Sales (in dollars), Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK) use, loans, tours Copyright Office Claims, registrations, fees (in dollars) Cultural Affairs Outreach activities Human Resources Cases (new, resolved, and on hand), grievances Information Technology Online transactions Law Library Research reports (Congress or other Governmental body) Public Services Number of requests from each service unit - Data are provided for current and preceding quarter and show percentage change. - Most numbers are counts of items, transactions, or customer service. - Statistics are shown by organization, in both charts and tables. The proposed Phases II and III of the Key Indicators project appear to more closely reflect a functional approach to performance measurement, to provide useful information for management decision making and guide organizational performance. Phases II and III, however, have yet to be scheduled or initiated. Phase I data reporting became routine and senior management did not direct further action. Setting a time frame for these two phases was not part of the original Key Indicators project plan; no individual or group is responsible for this part of the project; nor does a more comprehensive approach to performance measurement appear to be a priority for Library management. The individual responsible for the Key Indicators project was reassigned in late 1995. A successor responsible for continuing the process has not been named, although the Executive Committee has commissioned some specific analyses. In addition to the Key Indicators project, Library managers and staff cited the individual performance planning and appraisal process as the principal means of measuring Library performance. As described to us, the annual performance plans for senior executives form the basis for translating institutional strategy into specific organizational objectives.14 The Library's overall mission, goals, and objectives are intended to be integrated into each senior executive's performance plan, which in turn dictates the performance plans of lower levels of management in a cascading fashion. In addition to establishing a process for developing annual performance plans and assessing individual performance against them, the Library has taken steps to attempt to link pay and performance. We examined 13 senior executive performance plans over 3 years (1993 to 1995) to determine the application of the performance planning and appraisal system. We found that whereas the regulation provides the ability to hold personnel accountable and link senior managers' performance to overall Library goals and objectives, the Library does not systematically implement the system. Exhibit 2-16 summarizes the implementation of the performance planning process for senior executives. Despite their stated intent, few performance plans are tied to the Library's mission in a manner that is measurable or prioritized. EXHIBIT 2-16 Summary Assessment of Senior Manager Performance Plans Of 13 performance plans reviewedI Yes Partially No Are they linked to Library strategy? 2 4 7 Are they measurable? 4 7 2 Are their outputs ranked or dated? 0 0 13 7. The primary institutional mechanism for feedback on or evaluation of program efforts is the tracking of the annual budget, which is not an effective mechanism for assessing the achievement of the strategic plan. Budget tracking and, to a lesser degree, the key indicators, have formed the primary means for the Library to measure performance and status. The quarterly obligations review gives the Executive Committee information on the status of spending and on additional or upcoming needs, and forms the basis for the reprogramming of funds, if necessary. In recognition of the need for more formal collection of information on program progress, the Executive Committee has requested several regular reports in addition to that on the status of funds. These include the following: 7 Key indicators pilot status 7 Security event report, plan, and implementation status 7 Human resources statistics, including diversity 7 Audit and investigation status 7 Pending legislation status 7 Pending acquisitions 7 Space plan implementation status 7 NDL status and Internet activities and issues 7 Litigation status. It is important to emphasize that although these regular reports provide important data to the Executive Committee, they lack elements of performance, in terms of both outcome (effectiveness) and process (efficiency). Based on our extensive interviews and review of planning documentation, we did not find a consistent, systematic method of evaluating program progress against the strategic plans and, therefore, did not find a systematic method of feeding this information to executive and senior- level management of the Library for incorporation into planning efforts. For the 1988 MAP study, we could find no formal evaluation and feedback on results, although the Library does appear to have reviewed the status of recommendations on an informal basis. We did find reporting against MAP recommendations in a March 1992 high-level internal memorandum that asserted that nearly 80 percent of recommendations had been addressed, but this was a "rough analysis." No formal process was used to determine status and progress. A February 1992 attempt to initiate a formal assessment of the status of recommendations was not pursued because senior management believed that most recommendations had been addressed. Before the Management Retreat of 1994, the Library did identify accomplishments against the Strategic Plan of 1992, but this assessment was not rigorous in its evaluation nor did it result in an ongoing, consistent means of evaluating progress against strategic goals. Similarly, the Management Retreat in 1994 did result in a draft integrated planning and program execution process, the Library of Congress Proposed Planning and Review Process, which was circulated to the management team for comment in March 1995, but has not yet been revised or implemented at the Library-wide level. Based on the documentation the Library provided to us, the Proposed Planning and Review Process represented the only formal proposal for measuring progress against plan that the Library has developed in the last 8 years. The lack of Library-wide processes for assigning, tracking, and monitoring the status of recommendations, progress, and improvement in performance limits the Library's ability to assess its accomplishments correctly and to make resource allocation decisions that optimize achievement of its strategic goals. As a result, the Library is unable, except anecdotally, to ascertain status, monitor progress, and take management action as appropriate. Issues identified in Library-wide initiatives, including MAP, the Strategic Plan, and the Management Retreat, are not routinely evaluated. A large proportion of the Library management that we interviewed voiced concern and frustration over the lack of follow-through on issues identified in Library planning efforts. Several of the senior managers also stated that they would be reluctant to embark on additional planning efforts until specific proposed actions have been accomplished. This unwillingness is an indicator of the level of concern and could further limit the effectiveness of the Library's planning efforts in the future. Managers report being unclear about how Library-wide priorities apply to them and their organizations. They are expected to formulate and execute their programs consistent with the overall institutional priorities (most recently described in the Mission and Strategic Priorities) articulated by the Librarian, but there does not appear to be a disciplined or shared process for fostering these linkages. 8. Whereas the Library overall lacks an integrated planning and program execution process, at the service unit level the degree of implementation of the integrated planning and program execution processes varies from limited to complete. As part of the assessment of the Library's processes for planning and program execution, we analyzed the processes at the service unit level as well as the institutional level. Exhibit 2-17 summarizes the results of our analysis for major functions for 1995. EXHIBIT 2-17 Assessment of Components of Integrated Planning and Program Execution Process Service Unit/Function Strategic Planning Annual Operating/ Tactical Planning Budget Decisions Performance Measurement Evaluation/ Assessment/ Feedback Library-wide Cataloging Preservation CRS Copyright Arrearages Technology NDL Human Resources Facilities Fort Meade Security The CRS has recently implemented an integrated planning, program execution, and performance measurement process. CRS's process is fairly new; it was introduced and implementation of it was begun in the fall of 1995. Evaluating CRS Work for the Legislative Work of Congress: Linking Performance Goals with Tidewater Strategies and Actions, documents the CRS approach for linking vision, mission, and values with goals, explicit strategies, and measures of performance. CRS management places a high priority on the implementation of this integrated planning process. CRS is working to improve its key indicators and other tracking and reporting mechanisms to better reflect and motivate performance. To varying degrees, other Library Service Units and Directorates have developed their own internal planning and program execution processes. The operations units of Library Services, such as Cataloging and Preservation, have made progress toward implementing all the elements of an integrated planning and program execution process, whereas infrastructure areas, such as Human Resources, Facilities, and Security have made less progress to date. Exhibit 2-18 describes selected examples of the planning elements in place for several functions. EXHIBIT 2-18 Summary of Planning and Program Execution Processes for Selected Library Service Units and Major Functions Service Unit/Function Strategic Planning Annual Operating/ Tactical Plan Budget Decisions Performance Measurement Evaluation/ Assessment/ Feedback Cataloging Published vision, mission, and goal statements. Has a detailed tactical plan, makes periodic revisions. Plans, assigns tasks, responsibility, and dates. Develops and executes budgets consistent with Library-wide policy. Developing performance measures, per tactical plan. Does not measure productivity and throughput. Measures and reports work outputs. Tracks progress against plan. CRS Held retreat for long-range planning; prepared strategic plan. Has an integrated plan of intermediate strategies and actions. Develops and executes budgets consistent with Library-wide policy. Holds meetings twice a week, performs customer-focused measures of output and efficiency. Performs regular tracking; communicates internally; adjusts priority to match requirements. Copyright Defined mission, goals, and values in the 1992 strategic planning retreat; takes a participatory approach Undergoes little change from year to year, but reflects Registrar's priorities. Internal division plans cite section objectives and completion dates. Develops and executes budgets consistent with Library-wide policy. Puts together teams and committees for process improvement. Gathers workload statistics. Has ongoing internal quarterly program reviews. Division plans. Preservation Set broad objectives during 1993 long-range planning. Prepared with limited implementation detail. Develops and executes budgets consistent with Library-wide policy. Limited to numerical counts of items processed. Processing time not measured. Managers recognize need for tracking and control system. Arrearages Addresses long-range program in library-wide and service unit documents. Sets specific numerical objectives annually. Defined resource requirements at start of multiyear project, but has not separately identified them since. Tracks numbers of items on quarterly basis. Does not systematically track procedural initiatives. Does not measure efficiencies of varying approaches. Holds periodic arrearage summits that assess progress and presents findings in an annual report. Technology Lacks evidence of a strategic plan. Has an existing draft tactical plan. Does not consistently identify resource implications. Uses a cumbersome work request log. Shows no evidence of performance measures. Holds sporadic evaluations. NDL Has 5-year plan that focuses on digitizing five million items, not strategic objectives linked to library goal. Has emerging work and program plans that employ a detailed project management approach. Estimates multiyear funding requirements, appropriations, and donations. Has a measurement program under development. Holds monthly status reviews that compare progress against plans. Has working groups that discuss technical and operating issues. Human Resources Lacks evidence of a strategic plan. Pays considerable attention to HR programs and annual activity. Does not consistently identify resource implications. Has measures to monitor implementation of CSP resulting from the Cook case. Tracks workload statistics. Holds sporadic evaluations. Facilities Lacks evidence of a strategic plan or master facilities plans. Lacks evidence of annual planning. Does not consistently identify resource implications. Apparently has no measurement system. Reports inconsistency on evaluations. Security Details objectives and actions, not responsibility or dates in the 1993 Strategic Plan Implementation. Has detailed operational plans. Uses Collections Security Committee to recommend resource needs. Does not consistently identify resource implications. Apparently has no measurement system. Analysis of security and changes to collections policy initiated by Acting Chief of Protective Services. 9. Unclear roles and responsibilities and lack of accountability for performance affect the Library's ability to implement and an integrated planning and program execution process. Library managers in more than two-thirds of our interviews in the course of this study attributed the Library's inability to systematically implement its plans to unclear or undefined roles and responsibilities and to lack of accountability. External observers from the Library community and Congress voiced similar concern. Many of the people interviewed cited uncertainty over roles and responsibilities and poor accountability as major reasons for the Library's not implementing its strategic plans. Examples of the deficiencies noted relevant to accountability and roles and responsibilities include the following: 7 Lack of a known point-person responsible for planning and policy analysis 7 Numerous changes to the Deputy Librarian position and lack of understanding across the institution about the role of that office 7 An 18-month vacancy for the position of Director of Labor Relations 7 Lack of a training director with a large part of the workforce nearing retirement 7 The division of responsibility for technology activities between ITS and the service units 7 The lack of an institutional advocate at the Library for long-range facilities planning and an unclear division of responsibility between the Architect of the Capitol and the Library 7 The lack of authority to follow through of committee responsible for addressing Library-wide security issues. The effect of these examples of a lack of explicit roles and responsibilities and unclear accountability is a consistent inability to implement, follow through, and/or build on existing plans and identified problems. In examining institution-wide management practices at the Library, we sought to identify the organizations and/or personnel responsible for leading the implementation of key processes. From our review of documents outlining organizational functions, we could not identify the positions or individuals responsible for institutional management processes such as strategic planning and performance measurement. For example, there is no planning or policy function at the senior management level or within the Office of the Librarian. Responsibility for the institutional processes of planning, performance measurement, change management, or tracking assignments and action items across service units is not placed with a specific entity. A planning and development office was eliminated around 1989, and no other organization has consistently assumed its Library-wide, responsibilities.15 Appendix D lists other major organizational realignments and staff shifts. The lack of official charters or written guidelines contributes to confusion surrounding the role of the Office of the Librarian and staff, and of decision-making bodies like the Executive Committee and Senior Management Report Group. Official mission and function statements for elements of the Office of the Librarian have not been revised to keep pace with shifts in responsibility in that office.16 (The service units have, for the most part, revised their official mission and function statements as organizational changes have occurred). Many Library managers interviewed considered the Library's personnel performance planning and appraisal system to be the primary vehicle for ensuring accountability. As discussed above, we found little evidence that the performance planning and appraisal system, specifically that for senior executives, ties individual performance to institutional strategy and outcome. In addition, we found that appraisals are not consistently held in a timely fashion. Exhibit 2-19 summarizes the schedule for the senior managers' performance appraisals that we reviewed. Many appraisals lag behind the performance period by more than a year. For these to be more effective motivators of accountability and performance, the appraisals should occur on a regular annual cycle and be tied to the implementation of the strategic plan. Finally, there does not appear to be a consolidated means of tracking when performance plans are put in place, when progress reviews are conducted, or when final appraisals occur. EXHIBIT 2-19 Schedule of Senior Managers' Performance Appraisals Year Plans Time Elapsed Between End of Performance Period and Appraisal Assessed < 6 Months Within 1 Year Within 18 Months > 18 Months 1992 8 3 5 0 0 1993 10 0 2 5 3 1994 11 0 3 3* * * Of the 11 1994 performance plans we received, 6 appraisals had been held as of March 1, 1996. 10. The Library has recently sought to clarify its organizational and staff assignments in an effort to improve the consistency and effectiveness of its decision-making process. Within the past 6 months, organizational actions have been taken to address critical management issues of Library-wide integration, decision- making, and accountability. The Library reorganized to consolidate several functions and streamline organizational structure, shifted responsibilities in the Librarian's office (including the appointment of a temporary deputy), and created a senior Executive Committee to improve top management decision-making processes. The recent Library reorganization was directed primarily at realigning Library-wide support services and merging two principal operating units, Collections Services and Constituent Services, into one organization, Library Services. This realignment of support services reestablishes an organizational structure similar to that of the Associate Librarian for Management, eliminated in 1993. The consolidation of support services under one Associate Librarian was intended to provide institutional focus for improving the delivery of services, and to increase the accountability and integration of infrastructure provision with the needs of line Library organizations. Merging of Collections and Constituent Services was intended to streamline Library functions and increase their ability to perform roles that were similar across the two organizations. Exhibit 2-25 in our organizational structure section depicts the new Library Services organization. The creation of a senior management Executive Committee of six members to serve as the Library's primary corporate decision-making body was also a central part of the recent reorganization. Created because of concern about the ability of the larger management team (of approximately 20 individuals) to act decisively and provide direction, particularly regarding resource allocations issues, the Executive Committee is supported by a larger Senior Management Reporting Group. From the documentation reviewed and interviews with Library personnel, we established that the roles of the Executive Committee and Senior Management Reporting Group are clearly evolving. Use of the Senior Management Reporting Group as a conduit to and mechanism for communication from the Executive Committee is an approach in the early stages of implementation. Several managers interviewed were optimistic that the Executive Committee structure would provide for a corporate voice and permit the Library to make difficult decisions and see them through. Others argued that the Executive Committee was not adequately representative of perspectives at the Library. At this juncture, the roles of the Executive Committee and Senior Management Reporting Group appear too ambiguous to achieve their potential as leadership and decision-making bodies. 11. The Library has put in place a number of mechanisms to increase participation in the management of the institution; although somewhat effective, these mechanisms require further refinement. Library management espouses a participatory management approach. A broad network of task forces, working groups, committees, teams of volunteers, and a broad senior management team until recently, has put forth efforts to ensure participation in important Library management processes. Within service units, teams address operational issues on both a routine and an ad hoc basis. These teams have produced some important organizational initiatives to address specific issues within functions. These initiatives include cataloging innovations to address arrearages, process improvements, and activity-based costing in acquisitions and others. However, this participatory approach has not been supported by the institutional management practices that guide decision making and execution. Among the impediments to making this participatory intent fully effective are the following: 7 Teams and committees are too large (13 to 30 members) to be more than informational or agenda-setting 7 Team or committee leaders lack group or communication skills to lead teams to effective problem solving and decisions 7 Processes for timely communication, reporting, review, and funding support are not established. Numerous Library managers and staff interviewed communicated two perceptions regarding current Library decision making: 7 Getting clear senior management support for team decisions is critical, but difficult to obtain 7 Important decisions are made by small groups of senior managers through informal means, rather than through formally constituted mechanisms like the executive committee. Library staff told us that communication regarding decisions is often top -down and unilateral. Despite formal publications and informal channels of communications, Library managers and staff cited lack of strong interactive, two-way communications systems as an impediment to change. 12. In summary, the Library has not integrated or implemented all key components of a planning and program execution process in a systematic or consistent way. The links among the components of an integrated planning and program execution process, as depicted in Exhibit 2-11, provide for both implementation and integration across functions. At the Library, we found little evidence of explicit, widely accepted processes for achieving these linkages. For example, there is no comprehensive planning and program execution guidance for organizational decision making, nor is there a clearly designated individual responsible for that process. Priorities are not consistently translated into resource implications, nor are recommendations and progress in implementing them tracked in a manner to ensure accountability and accomplishment. The Library has in place several component parts of an integrated planning and program execution process. In addition, it has taken numerous steps and launched many initiatives to help address current challenges. However, Library management processes are neither integrated nor implemented in a consistent, systematic manner. Mission and vision are not supported by a framework for making decisions that is widely communicated and accepted throughout the Library. Our case studies, referred to throughout this section, support this lack of integration and implementation. 7 The National Digital Library program is focused on short-term results rather than on building a sustainable and supportable digital production and access infrastructure. It is managed as an isolated project, rather than as part of an integrated information strategy. 7 Planning for use of the Fort Meade facility is not part of a comprehensive facilities strategy, which would serve as the foundation for making decisions, obtaining project approval and funding. Site and facility type requirements were not clearly defined and agreed to prior to action, resulting in changing estimates of space needs and recommended approach, and preventing the Library from proactively solving its storage problems. % The Competitive Selection Process was redesigned, but resulted in a slow and cumbersome process, widespread dissatisfaction among customers, and subsequently, lengthy study. 7 The Library has a number of security problems resulting from a fragmented organization, ineffective management procedures, lack of a clear security policy, ill-defined requirements for collections security, an incomplete risk management process, and no comprehensive security plan. 7 Interest in arrearages reduction galvanized Library management and staff, but was not part of a system-wide look at performance that included all aspects of the process. The focus on item counts was not linked with resource requirements or customer needs. The Library approach to management has been characterized both by Library managers and staff, and by customers representing several different perspectives, as reactive and crisis oriented. What is perceived as repeated inability to move forward on major issues is in part due to lack of strong institutional management processes for implementing plans and ensuring follow through. This lack of attention to management process also prevents the Library from generalizing from service unit and directorate experience to fully take advantage of performance improvement and other initiatives underway in various parts of the organization. 2.2.4 Recommendations The recommendations below take into account the interdependent nature of management processes. They are intended to help the Library capitalize on its strengths, provide for integration across the institution, and, most important, build commitment to ensuring accountability, proactive decision making, and implementation. 1. Institute a comprehensive planning and program execution process that builds on elements in place and links plans to explicit mission elements and outcome-oriented measures of performance. The Library should put in place a comprehensive planning and program execution process that provides for linkage among the elements depicted in Exhibit 2-11. This requires the following actions: 7 Instituting a regular process for revisiting and updating strategy 7 Developing annual operating plans based on strategic planning and designed to guide budget decisions and program execution 7 Building on the key indicators effort to develop measures that provide useful information regarding organizational efficiency and effectiveness and are used to assess results achieved against targets of performance 7 Establishing regular mechanisms for providing feedback regarding performance, issue resolution, and potential future areas of concern and effectively using management information systems to this end. 2. Establish the capability for problem solving and decision making that improves the Library's ability to address concerns that cut across organizational lines and that integrates major support functions with line operations. To improve the Library's ability to respond to institution-wide issues and make decisions that affect multiple parts of the organization, the Library should take steps to clarify roles, responsibilities and authorities within the Office of the Librarian and service units, particularly for matters of institutional concern. The Library should also establish a small group, reporting to the Deputy Librarian, responsible for leading institutional initiatives. No staff function is devoted to development and implementation of an integrated planning and program execution process. Similarly, there is no independent policy analysis function that cuts across the institution. Responsibilities of this group would include the following: 7 Developing Library-wide guidance for planning and program execution processes, including seeking ways to integrate planning and resource allocation decisions and to develop better performance measures and feedback mechanisms 7 Making the most of the work of existing Library committees and task forces to ensure that expertise and analysis of major issues is used for decision-making purposes 7 Leading independent analyses of the program and resource implications of major decisions. 3. Establish the Deputy Librarian of Congress as a strong Chief Operating Officer and invest that individual with adequate authority to lead internal management processes. Part of the lack of institutional management processes for planning and program execution lies in issues surrounding the role of Deputy Librarian as Chief Operating Officer. The position and role of the Deputy Librarian has been the subject of some debate in recent years, reinforced by the short tenure of those who have served in that position since 1990 and several periods of vacancy. To focus efforts of the institution on implementation, clarify roles, and responsibility and increase accountability, we recommend that the Deputy be designated Chief Operating Officer (COO) with responsibility for implementing the Library's mission and goals. Similar to the role of COO in Executive Branch agencies,17 the Library's Deputy role would include the following: 7 Providing overall organizational management 7 Supporting efforts to develop and implement strategic and operational plans 7 Providing leadership for improvement or reengineering of support services 7 Championing the development and use of meaningful measures of performance 7 Providing operating linkages for external relationships built by the Librarian with organizations, customers and stakeholders, including the Library and publishing communities, scholars, and other national libraries, to leverage Library operations and include stakeholders in decisions. 4. Reinforce the decision making and leadership role of the Executive Committee and clarify the purpose of the Senior Management Reporting Group. The Executive Committee and Senior Management Reporting Group structure has the potential to help address decision-making problems, clarify roles and responsibilities, and ensure accountability. The Executive Committee should be firmly established as a decision-making and policy-setting body with responsibilities for overseeing institutional direction and performance. Although the Executive Committee will necessarily have day- to-day operational management functions, its purpose should include paying more structured attention to long-term strategic issues, understanding their potential impact, and providing a focal point for implementation. It should review the Library's progress toward achieving its goals on a regular basis, with its focus being on identifying performance problems and areas of potential future concern. The Executive Committee should be supported by an active Senior Management Reporting Group, the role of which should be not only to contribute to the deliberations of the Executive Committee, but also to serve as the link between the Executive Committee and Library staff at large. The Senior Management Reporting Group would thereby take on an important role as the Library's management team for ensuring decisions are effectively communicated and implemented, policies followed, and issues raised in a timely manner. 5. Improve provision of support services (particularly technology, human resources, and facilities) and better integrate these functions into Library operations. Concerns about the ability of Library support services to provide adequate infrastructure for core Library processes has been raised consistently over the past several years. Plans, when developed, are generally not implemented nor are they integrated into Library operations. Efforts to improve the delivery of these services have met with mixed results. The Library should put in place a proactive process to reengineer support services, particularly in the areas of human resources, IT, and facilities. Such an effort to evaluate and redesign support services would include careful assessment of actual needs and would consider alternative means of service provision. 6. Institute Library-wide mechanisms to measure performance and monitor results. The Key Indicators project plan provides the basis for a more rigorous approach to performance measurement. The Library should move quickly to implement and expand on Phases II and III of the project and then develop a process that includes measures of output, productivity, and customer and employee satisfaction (using employee survey results as a departure point). The development of a performance measurement system should be an institution-wide effort that is used not only to inform management decision making, but to galvanize improved performance at all levels of the organization. The Library should ensure that meaningful measures are developed, targets of performance against those measures established, and results tracked on a regular basis. Management information systems should also be reinforced to better inform management decisions and make feedback routine. 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL PROCESSES As part of the overall analysis, BoozaAllen profiled the Library's major operational processes to provide a framework for understanding the organizational performance and the factors that influence it. 2.3.1 Background By focusing on the major operational processes, we developed an understanding of operational performance, organizational and infrastructure relationships, and management perspective. This understanding is the foundation and context for integrating other findings. 2.3.2 Methodology Our study of the Library's processes took two forms: profiling the Library's processes and detailed examination of the management of two collections (books and photographs). These efforts are explained below. 1. BoozaAllen profiled the Library collections management, copyright registration, and Congressional Research Service (CRS) inquiry and response processes. We profiled the following major operational processes: Acquisition and receipt of materials Cataloging Preservation Servicing (providing materials to requesters) Disposal Copyright CRS inquiry and response. The profiles are made up of flow charts, throughput data, and staffing data for the processes. These profiles are located in Appendices E, F, G, and H. BoozaAllen's approach to developing process profiles was straightforward. Using existing Library documentation (for example, work flow documents, various studies, and annual reports), we first developed tentative flows for the core processes. Using these flowcharts as a starting point, the team conducted interviews with Library staff to adjust, confirm, and expand each profile. Process information obtained from these interviews included: Steps and sequence Input Approximate time intervals Number and type of staff involved Results and outputs Information systems and databases used Decisions and decision-makers involved. BoozaAllen compiled this information, created the flows, and validated the profiles with Library staff. 2. BoozaAllen also examined how the Library manages its book and photograph collections. In addition to the overall profiling of collections management, we focused our examination on the monographic book and photograph collections. To accomplish this, we: Interviewed Library people involved at various levels of collection management Visited work and storage sites Observed work in process. We also attempted to track a random sample of books and two photograph collections received during 1995 from acquisition of the materials through entering them into service. The results of these two efforts contributed significantly to the findings and conclusions discussed in this section. The appendices for this section include detailed information and descriptions of the processes we observed and profiled. The remainder of this section on operational processes discusses our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 2.3.3 Findings and Conclusions Our findings are grouped according to the conclusions to which they lead, as follows: Management of the collections management process Collection management infrastructure Management of acquisitions and integration with collections management Procedures for improving collections management. Our findings about the Copyright Office and CRS focus on the potential for operational synergism between the processes and resources used in those areas and those in collections. Appendices F and G, which focus on the Library's monographic book and photograph collections, complement the findings in this section. From the profiling efforts, we developed an understanding of the flow and characteristics of the major collections processes used in the Library. Essentially, the processes used in the Library are relatively simple, straightforward, serial processes. Little rework and in-process approvals exist because the tenured staff is experienced with the work of Collections, Copyright, and CRS (which is mostly knowledge based). The process used in collections has multiple entry points for the different media and acquisition sources, but for the most part the processes are similar for the different materials. Because the Library works with more than 400 languages, a broad scope of subject matter, various acquisition channels, and multiple types of media, a number of process complications and exceptions arise as the Library deals with the input variations and the knowledge required to process them. Historically, the Library has dealt with these complexities and variations by organizing resources along specialties of subject matter, geography, language, medium, and acquisition source (depending upon organizational unit). As the amount of published material and the scope of the Library's acquisition activities increase, and the number of resources with specialized skills decrease, the Library's collections process becomes stressed and requires alternative process, technology, and management solutions. For a more detailed explanation of the processes and the complexities with which the Library deals, please refer to the appendices. 1. The Library manages its collections on a functional basis and does not control or measure collection management as a process. The fundamental finding from our review of the operational processes is that the Library does not manage or approach collections activities as an end-to-end process. Instead of using a "process management approach," the Library manages divisions and directorates in a classically functional approach. Exhibit 2-20 illustrates the basic difference between functional and process management approaches: The functional management approach focuses on guiding, controlling, and improving functions and resources along and within the organizational structure and components. The process management approach focuses on guiding, controlling, and improving the effectiveness of a business process that uses organizational resources to deliver products and services. EXHIBIT 2-20 Process Management The concept of process management defines, organizes, and manages an organization and support structures in terms of processes rather than functional areas. This concept is based on the realization that producing a product and delivering a service requires activities and internal processes that cut across the organization. This has the effect of highlighting the integration of, and communication between, people and functions within the organization and its customers. Furthermore, it facilitates the identification of nonvalue-added activities and deals with the administrative activities as well as the process activities. One of the main benefits and purposes of using a process management approach is that it provides the understanding of how to control, manage, and constantly improve how the organization delivers its products and services in response to changing customer demands and input variables. In practice, process management includes: Determining the effectiveness of the processes by using measures of workload, resource availability, utilization, output, and efficiency Managing the inputs to the processes Linking the process goals and plans with the organizational strategy and goals Assigning process "Owners" to oversee and manage the processes and the associated infrastructure support and systems. Typical results from process management practices include reducing congestion problems from mismatches between the workload of organizational units and their capacity, eliminating variability in workloads, and increasing the consistency in the way work is performed. Our profiling of the operational processes used in collections management leads to the conclusion that the Library does not manage its collections management process in this manner. The following Exhibit 2- 21 shows the collections management process of the Library today. Note that the collections management process is an end