What Kind of Review is Right for You?

1. What Kind of Review is Right for You? Donna Bourne-Tyson University Librarian, Dalhousie University Martha Whitehead University Librarian, Queen’s University Canadian Library Association Conference, May 2013

2. Overview • Reasons for Reviews & Types • Consultants or Colleagues • Case Studies • Recommendations • Discussion

3. Reasons for Reviews & Types • Culture of Assessment • Accountability versus continuous improvement; false dichotomy? • Analysis of outcomes and performance at high level (positive and negative consequences) • Expectation of a response and implementation of recommendations

4. Reasons for Reviews & Types • Reasons for Reviews • Mandated (legislation, Senate policy) • Desire or need for change (change in leadership or user requirements) • Funding constraints • Other?

5. Reasons for Reviews & Types • At least four types, some overlap: • Governance – focus on high-level decision making, authority, oversight, often considering Board health • Organizational – focus on organizational effectiveness, HR issues, succession planning, aligning structure with strategies, capacity • Operational – more detailed focus on low-level operations, workflows, processes, aligning services and staffing • External – focus varies based on terms of reference, generally not as detailed as Operational Review

6. Reasons for Reviews & Types • Commonalities • Should link to strategic plan, mission & vision • Timelines won’t mesh with your schedule • Deadlines frequently missed; budget inadequate • One review leads to another • Follow-up often insufficient

7. Consultants or Colleagues • Facilitator or Consultant? • Facilitator: in-house team contributes own expertise and experience to address the problem; facilitator encourages ideas and discussion, keeps everyone on track, captures the content • Do you have enough expertise and experience? enough perspectives? enough time? • Are you at an impasse? • Are engagement and commitment key objectives?

8. Consultants or Colleagues • Engagement and commitment are always key objectives: form a steering group to • Represent stakeholders • Develop project objectives • Identify consultants/colleagues • Approve consultation process • Advise on communications • Regular check-ins, troubleshooting • Deliver report and enable next steps

9. Consultants or Colleagues • Consultants • Professional expertise • Breadth of experience / customers • Beware the cookie cutter: it is all about you • Business relationship – RFP, selection, contract, deliverables

10. Consultants or Colleagues • Colleagues • Domain expertise, peer respect • Depth of experience • They’ve walked in your shoes • Collegial relationship – limitation on time expectations, service/reputational motivation

11. Case Studies – Governance • CRKN - Why a governance review • Ongoing commitment to good governance: assessment • CRKN’s 10th anniversary • Questions of size and composition – still ok? • Scope • Assess the appropriateness of the governance structure in the context of CRKN’s mission, vision, values and strategic directions.

12. Case Studies – Governance • Specific objectives • To review the size and composition of the Board, including all forms of representation; • To identify specific issues or concerns with respect to the current Board structure; • To consider possible mechanisms for addressing these issues; • To achieve compliance with pending legislation for not-for-profit corporations; • To recommend any changes to governance structure that would achieve organizational goals and serve members more effectively.

13. Case Studies – Governance • Process • Existing committee, selective use of consultants • Phases • Information gathering and analysis (included meeting with external expert re board trends, developments and best practices in not-for-profit and academic organizations) • Issue identification, interim report • Member and stakeholder engagement (consultant for survey design) • Recommendations to the Board for changes • Ratification of changes by voting members.

14. Case Studies – Governance • Success factors • External expert on selected topics • Periodic concentrated in-person meetings • Facilitative team members • Communication with large, diverse community • Learnings from implementation • The topic may not be as engaging for your stakeholders as it is for you! • Impact of change may be more change

15. Case Studies – Organizational • OCUL – Why a Review • Services have grown dramatically over time • Economic circumstances in university sector • New partnership opportunities

16. Case Studies – Organizational • What is an organizational effectiveness review* • Think organization (how things work) + effectiveness (how well things work) • Focuses on three key questions: • What are we trying to do? • What resources and structures do we require to accomplish the goal/tasks? • How do we know we are making progress? *Snowdon and Associates

17. Case Studies – Organizational • Goals • To ensure that OCUL has good strategic oversight, good resource allocation oversight, open assessment processes and that members’ engagement is aligned with the OCUL mission; • To ensure that all members are able to participate and potentially contribute at all levels of OCUL program management; • To ensure alignment with members’ needs and transparency concerning activities, priority setting and resource allocation.

18. Case Studies – Organizational • Process • Executive committeedefined requirements for a consultant and provided project oversight • Methodology: interviews, survey, information review • Analysis answered the three key questions • Drafts to Executive • Report and recommendations to Directors • Actions

19. Case Studies – Organizational • Success factors • Consultant with a deep understanding of sector and a perspective external to organization • Time (of content experts) devoted to check-ins • Opening doors for new conversations • Learnings from implementation • TBA from this one, but from others… communicate, engage, continually evolve

20. Case Studies –Operational • Current Institution – Why? • Contradictory recommendations in previous studies • Systematic analysis had not been undertaken in recent memory; mergers, technological changes • Need to redeploy significant number of staff to develop new services

21. Case Studies –Operational • Scope • Constrained to some extent by budget • Model comparable to DIY renovation on HGTV • Time for implementation doubled for DIY • Opportunity to create a learning organization

22. Case Studies –Operational • Specific objectives • To ensure alignment between strategies, services and staff • To identify activities that can be discontinued • To recommend workflow changes to achieve efficiencies • To then redeploy staff to emerging service initiatives • To develop internal capacity to redesign workflows and plan for new services collaboratively

23. Case Studies –Operational • Process • Engage consultant, design review with handoff to staff for completion and implementation • Methodology: interviews, survey, process mapping, meetings, information gathering from comparator institutions • Analysis framed around six key environmental factors; 22 recommendations • Drafts to Senior Management Team • Report distributed to all staff, opportunity to respond • Implementation ongoing over 8 months; staff team of nine co-leading implementation

24. Case Studies –Operational • Success factors • Consultant able to share knowledge of best practices at comparable or aspirational institutions • Staff willing to engage and work hard • Shared recognition that something has to give • Learnings from implementation • Communicate, engage, use review as a touchstone

25. Case Studies – External • Previous Institution – Why an External Review? • Mandated by Senate but institution had not enforced the schedule • No review had been done in over 9 years • Significant leadership turnover; services not keeping pace with user expectations

26. Case Studies – External • Scope • Senate Guidelines and specific questions posed by VP Academic • All aspects of Library operations, relationships, capacity, performance considered fair game

27. Case Studies – External • Process • Three person review team; two external, one internal (Chair of Senate Library Committee) • Methodology: Self-Study Report, interviews, information gathering from comparator institutions / reviewer expertise • Analysis framed around questions of capacity and communications; 26 recommendations • Recommendations reviewed by Senate Committee; separate set of recommendations issued by Senate Committee to prioritize

28. Case Studies – External • Success factors • Reviewers respected by community and respectful of community; system constraints recognized • Recommendations ranged in scale and scope; some achievable as early wins • Internal review committee member – sustainability • Learnings from implementation • Easier to introduce change advocated by experts and endorsed by Senate

29. Recommendations • Manage expectations (yours and others) • Not a replacement for leadership • Select your colleagues or consultants yourself • Build implementation phase into following year’s goals and budget, ensure accountability, shared commitment to implement recommendations

30. Discussion • How does your organization make “review” and “assessment” sound normal, not scary? • What have you learned from past reviews? • What worked well? • What would you do differently? • How has a consultant or facilitator been effective? • What issues has a review helped your organization tackle?