College and Research Libraries CHARLESR.McCLURE The Planning Process: Strategies for Action Planning is the process of identifying organizational goals and objectives, developing programs or services to accomplish those objectives, and evaluat- ing the success of those programs vis-a-vis the stated objectives. The impor- tance and purposes of planning as a means to increase organizational effec- tiveness are stressed. A model of the planning process is presented, and the various components of the model are described in terms of implementation . The paper concludes with the author suggesting some pragmatic strategies and considerations that may facilitate the implementation of organizational t planning in an academic library. ''P LANNING? Naw, we don't have enough time for planning. We don ' t even have enough staff or support to perform the basic services. How can we plan?" This sentiment is frequently encountered in many library organizations regarding the planning pro- cess. Indeed, a current state of crisis man- agement is likely to be a direct result of not developing an organizational planning pro- cess. Continuous efforts to solve yesterday's problems make planning for tomorrow even more difficult. Development of goals and objectives as part of an organizational plan- ning process is absolutely necessary if the library is to respond effectively to the in- formation needs of its environment. Planning is a process of identifying or- ganizational goals and objectives, developing programs or services to accomplish those objectives, and evaluating the success of those programs vis-a-vis the stated objec- tives .1 A plan is a written document for- malizing the planning process. It deter- mines which objectives and which services will be allocated various resources. Plans and the planning process recognize the fact that organizations cannot do everything; Charles R. McClure is assistant professor, School of Library Science , University of Ok- lahoma, Norman. 456 I therefore, they must allocate resources on a priority basis to do those activities that lead to the effective accomplishment of goals and objectives. The word effectiveness must be stressed, as it implies the ability of the organization to accomplish stated goals and objectives. Effectiveness asks the question, " What is the organization doing?" Efficiency, on the other hand , implies the ability of the or- ganization to accomplish a task in the least amount of time with less cost. Efficiency asks the question, "How well are we doing it?" Organizations may be doing things well (efficiently) that need not be done (ineffec- tive) or vice-versa. Planning addresses both the effectiveness and efficiency questions but places primary importance on effective- ness: What is the organization doing?2 For too long a time planning has been seen as a responsibility only of top adminis- tration. If administrators chose not to de- velop formalized mechanisms for planning or failed to develop formalized planning documents , such was their prerogative: However, planning is much too important to be left to the discretion of library admin- istrators. All organizational mem hers___:. especially other professional librarians- have a responsibility to develop a planning process as well as formalized plans for their given areas of responsibility. The purpose of planning is to facilitate the accomplishment of organizational objec- tives. Planning has primacy in tenris of or- ganizational effectiveness; without goals, without plans, no rational indicator of effec- tiveness can be determined. Planning is pervasive; it can and should be done at all organizational levels; it can and should be done with all organizational members; and it is an ongoing, continuous process. 3 In these times of economic difficulties for many academic libraries, the need for a planning process takes on significant impor- tance in six general areas. First, planning provides for a rational re- sponse to uncertainty and change. Although the organization cannot control its environ- ment, it may be able to manipulate it- assuming there is an objective to be accom- plished. Second, planning focuses attention on goals and objectives . Does your organization have a written set of goals and objectives? If not, dysfunctions, departmental competi- tion, and· ineffective resource allocation are likely. Third, planning is important as an aid to resource allocation by establishing priorities for funding. Which services can be provided at the least cost and for the most benefit? Fourth, planning also serves as a basis for determining individual, departmental, or- ganizational, or program accountability. Fifth, planning facilitates control of or- ganizational operations by collecting infor- mation to evaluate the various programs or services. Finally, planning orients the organization to a futuristic stance. Instead of always reacting to problem situations, the organiza- tion attempts to foresee and mitigate against future problems before they become crises. Some academic librarians already may have witnessed the results when the plan- ning process is ignored and formalized plans are not developed. Typical management styles in such situations may be described as laissez-faire-organizational members basi- cally "do their own thing." Laissez-faire management styles can digress into crisis management-the problems from yesterday are never solved, only elongated. Without planning, snap decisions replace deliberate decisions in terms of organizational activity. J... t L The Planning Process I 457 And lastly, no planning will be evidenced by uncoordinated, piecemeal activities en- couraging internal organization competition for scarce resources. The purpose of this paper is to present the reader with a general overview of the . planning process in an academic library set- ting. A model of planning will be suggested and explained in such a way that organiza- tional members in an academic library can use the model as a means of improving the planning process in their organization. The three components of planning, i.e., the mission statement, program develop- ment, and evaluation, will be discussed, fol- lowed by some strategic considerations for successful organizational planning. No at- tempt is made to provide a comprehensive review of the literatu_re although relevant sources will be referred to as needed. The author is less concerned with the volumi- nous writings on the subject and prefers a pragmatic approach: developing strategies for planning to be implemented and for- malized in the academic library. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING Systems thinking has been used as a basis for developing the planning process in or- ganizations by a number of management scientists. 4 Such a view is also used by this writer as a basis for developing the planning process. Additionally, it is based on the writings and research of Ernest R. De- Prospo, who has been instrumental in the formulation of a planning process for the li- brary environment. 5 Although much of his work has been done in the public library setting, many of his concepts can be ex- tended to the academic library. An overview of the planning process is provided in figure 1. This overview suggests specific activities that can be part of the planning process in the academic library or- ganization. It is intended to J:)rovide both a conceptual description of planning and prac- tical procedures for developing written plans as a basis for organizational, de- partmental, or specific program activities. Within the paradigm of systems thinking, it must be recognized that planning takes place within a context or environment. That environment includes the social, political, and economic milieu in which an organiza- C 0 N T E X T (Environment) MEASURES FOR EVALUATION REVISED I MEASURES PHILOSOPHY J NEEDS ASSESSMENT .-----JL.-----. OPPORTUN!TI§So - - .. ""' REVISE ACTION STEPS Fig. 1 G ENE RALIZ E D M O D E L FO R PROGRAM P LANN ING OUICOMES I f RESULTS tion struggles for survival and effectiveness. Open systems thinking stresses the flow of resources (information) between the organi- zation and the environment in which it op- erates. Recognition of this relationship is critical to the development of both input and feedback throughout the planning process. Mission Statement The first component of the planning pr cess is the development of a mission state ment. A mission statement is a formal writ- ten document developed by the members of the library ·under the leadership of the or- ganization's administration. Typically, the document begins with a brief statement of the historical background of the library as well as its current activities; significant dates and developments in the history should be included. The purpose . of this section is to recognize the origins of the library, draw upon its historical strengths, and identify critical experiences in its development. A typical mistake made by the organiza- tion when beginning the planning process is to begin immediately with statements of goals and objectives. In such instances the philosophical assumptions held by the or- ganizational members regarding "appro- priate" roles of the organization in its en- vironmental context and "appropriate" val- ues to determine organizational activities are not made explicit. 6 A statement of or- ganizational philosophy must be developed to form a basis or agreement among organi- zational members from which goals and ob- jectives logically can follow. The assumptions within the organizational philosophy usually are of two varieties. The first includes assumptions regarding the role of the institution in the environment and recognition of the factors that appear to have significant implications regarding fu- ture operations of the organization. This first set of assumptions may deal with topics such as technology, intellectual freedom, societal responsibility of the library, or information/knowledge production. The second set of assumptions are value decisions as to "appropriate" responses to the first set of assumptions for services to be provided by the organization. Issues regard- ing the type of "appropriate" library sei-- The Planning Process I 459 vices as -well as their degree of implementa- tion should be raised here. Topics included in the second set of assumptions include the role of the librarian during library decision making and program development, iden- tification of "appropriate" user groups to be served, and "adequate" services to be pro- vided. Both types of assumptions must be . made explicit. Key terms and concepts should be defined to ensure that all organi- zational members agree upon various as- pects of value-laden words such as service, information , reference, etc. The development of goals and objectives takes place in an atmosphere of needs as- sessment. This term may be defined as the difference between where we are (what we're doing now) and where we want to be (what we want to be doing). The needs as- sessment process is input for the develop- ment of goals and objectives. Many methods can be used for needs assessment: previous surveys, organizational reports, or other written documents; community analysis; or other means of gathering empirical data. The point is that needs assessment provides environmental input into the process of goal and objective identification. Based on the needs ~fssessment, organizational members agree upon goals and objectives through discussion and compromise or a more for- malized method such as the Delphi tech- nique. 7 One must recognize the difference be- tween goals and objectives-they are not the same. Goals provide long-range guidelines (five years or more) for organiza- tional activity; they might never be accom- plished, and they are not measured. In con- trast, objectives are measurable, short- range, and time-limited; specific responsibil- ity is given to individuals for accomplish- ment of an objective. Figure 2 suggests some criteria for judging the validity of an objective. 8 Differentiating between goals and objec- tives is especially important because many academic libraries include sizable numbers of branch libraries scattered about, campus. Each branch may operate in an environ- ment somewhat different from the main li- brary and may need goals and objectives to accommodate such differences. Therefore, each branch may have different goals and 460 I College & Research Libraries • November 1978 1. Is it, generally speaking, a guide to action? 2. Does it suggest alternative courses of ac- tion? 3. Is it explicit enough to suggest certain types of action? 4. Can it be measured? 5. Is it time-limited? 6. Is it ambitious enough to be challenging? 7. Does it support both the goals and the in- stitutional philosophy? Fig.2 Criteria for Judging the Validity of an Objective objectives , but they all will stem from the same organizational philosophy. The pri- mary consideration to be recognized is that all parts of the organization must develop goals that are mutually supportive. Such an occurrence is more likely when there is agreement as to organizational philosophy. The combination of the historical back- ground , philosophy, definitions, goals , and objectives forms a document which may be described as a mission statement. The de- velopment of such a document is the initial, and perhaps most important, step in the planning process. An excellent example of a mission statement for a public library re- cently appeared in American Libraries. 9 Whether one agrees or disagrees with the substance of this document, it contains a straightforward explication of historical de- velopment and assumptions (philosophy), followed by definitions , goals, and objectives. Thus the statements of organizational phi- losophy, goals , and objectives should be de- veloped as a written document that may be called the mission statement. It is this document that forms the basis for identify- ing and selecting programs to accomplish the objectives: Additionally, it is on the basis of this document that organizational units develop strategies to accomplish goals, cooperate in resource allocation, and take action. Programs for Action Organizational goals and objectives in themselves are of little value until they are translate·d into a program (or service) that will accomplish the stated objectives. It is in this translation of objectives into actions that the library responds to the wants of its pa- trons as well as addresses the information needs of its environment. Here a stance of action, of formulating plans to accomplish the objective, is developed. Program development for academic librar- ies must consider (1) information con- stituencies and (2) information services. An examination of these two concepts in a ma- trix format (see figure 3) suggests four spe- cific strategies that may be used as a basis for program development. 10 This procedure is one method of examining the environ- ment for opportunities. Opportunities are a favorable set of circumstances that can be exploited to help accomplish a given objec- tive. A technique that can be used to iden- tify opportunities is forecasting-the process of identifying critical changes and develop- ments in the environment that may affect organizational goals and objectives. 11 Forecasting assumes that mere mortals can indeed foresee some of the future changes and factors that may affect the or- ganization. Both empirical information and subjective information are used in the pro- cess. A typical forecast for the next three to five years may include possible trends or changes in terms of technology, economy, politics , and society. Although it is recog- nized that all trends or changes cannot be foreseen, some can be identified. Develop- ment of programs that anticipate some trends or changes has a greater likelihood of success than programs developed in an en- vironmental vacuum. Once the objective is agreed upon, an at- tempt should be made to develop alterna- tive programs that may accomplish the ob- jective. Developing alternatives encourages the creative and innovative aspect of pro- gram development. One finds more possible alternatives than originally expected if alter- natives are explicitly and consciously sought. Development of alternative pro- grams forces us , then, to choose or rank the programs on some kind of rational basis. Figure 4 presents a typical library objec- tive and includes three alternative programs which may all help to accomplish that goal. Once alternatives are suggested, they can be compared and contrasted based on a set of criteria that include organizational con- straints. Although criteria and constraints will vary among organizations and programs selected, such a comparison is a rational basis to evaluate the various alternatives and Present Users INFORMATION CONSTITUENCIES New User Groups The Planning Process I 461 INFORMATION SERVICES Present Information Services 1. Market Penetration 3. User Group Expansion N Info ew rmation vices Ser 2. Info rmation rvices opment Se Devel 4. Diver sification 1. Market Penetration: The Organization Seeks Change through Increasing Its Share of Present User Groups from Its Present Services 2. Information Services Development: The Organization Seeks Change by Developing Improved or New Services for Its Present User Groups 3. User Group Expansion: The Organization Seeks Change by Taking Its Present Serv ices into Dif- ferent Types of User Groups 4. Diversification: The Organization Seeks Change by Taking New Information Servi ces into Dif- ferent Types of User Groups Fig. 3 Strategies for Program Development* *Adapted from Phillip Kotler, Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations (Englewood Cliffs , N.J. : Prentice-Hall, 1975), p .166-67. CRITERIA 1. Target Audience Description 2. Target Audience Size 3. Potential Number of Contact Hours 4. Staff Hours for Planning 5. Staff Hours for Program Operation 6. Facilities Needed and Est. Cost 7. Promotion and Public Relations 8. Imfiact (Social, Po itical, or Economic) 9. Program Evaluation Measures 10. Risk of Failure 11. Other Program Rank ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS 1. Provide Evening 2. Provide Docu- and Weekend Refer- ment Delivery Ser- e nce Service vice to Faculty Fig.' 4 3. Provid e Instruc- he Use of ibrary tion on t the L Evaluating Alternatives (Objective: To Increase Contact Hours between the Librarians and the Patron s) ...;.: 462 f College & Research Libraries • November 1978 determine which programs will be im- plemented. The process f identifying opportunities and alternative programs and then selecting the "best" programs for action assumes: Program strategies are more likely to suc- ceed when alternatives are compared and contrasted; for every objective there are at least two (and probably many) alternatives; identification of opportunities and alterna- tive programs fosters creativity and innova- tion; and the better the decision maker can recognize and anticipate constraints critical to attaining an objective, the more clearly and accurately can the best program alterna- tives be selected. Once the programs have been selected, action steps should be developed for activat- ing the program. Action steps simply are a set of procedures which, when followed, will accomplish a given objective. One should be able to describe every program by a set of action steps; if this is not possi- ble the nature of the program should be re- considered. Furthermore, adequate public- ity, advertisements, and program an- nouncements should be distributed to ap- propriate media to ensure that potential users are aware of the program. Each program also must contain a tenta- tive budget. At a minimum level, the budget contains cost categories such as (1) personnel, (2) equipment, (3) contracted services, and ( 4) supplies and support mate- rial. Depending on the complexity and length of the program, the budget may be more or less detailed and subdivided within the above (or other) cost categories. 12 One method to determine the viability of the program is to conduct a pilot study or pretest. A pilot is a scaled-down version of the actual program-a trial of its procedures to determine their usefulness and accuracy. The purpose of the pilot is to determine which parts of the program can be improved before the program is actually implemented. Potential problems identified at this stage are easier to correct than during full-scale implementation. Based on such a pilot, the program can be revised and modified.).3 Finally, the program is implemented and put into action. At this stage, it is essential that all participants know what they are • supposed to do, how it is to be done, and when it is to be done. Additionally, specific responsibilities for completion of specific ac- tion steps by specific individuals must be clearly delineated. Written task and scheduling charts such as a Gantt chart or flow process chart will be useful at this point. 14 As figure 1 suggests, the program is selected from a list of possible alternatives and judged in light of opportunities and constraints affecting the organization. The program is revised as a result of a pilot project or pretest, and action steps are spec- ified. Task responsibilities are clearly de- lineated before implementation of the pro- gram. All of these decisions. must be set forth in a written document for the sake of clarity as well as for evalu"ation. Evaluation As suggested earlier, a possible mistake an organization can make when developing a planning process is to begin with goals and objectives without first examining or- ganizational philosophy. A second typical mistake is for the organization to consider the planning process complete upon im- plementation of the program. At this point, the planning process is still incomplete. The last and significant portion of organizational planning is the evaluation of the planning process and the success of the selected pro- grams. Evaluation is the accountability aspect of planning and represents a measurement of effectiveness in reaching some predeter- mined goal. 15 Failure to include evaluation as part of the library planning process may result in the creation of a self-serving bureaucracy, increased distance between in- formation and users, ineffective allocation of resources, poor credibility with governing bodies, reinforcement of status quo, and, most important, the continuance of pro- grams that should have been ended because they no longer contribute to the accom- plishment of organizational goals and objec- tives . It is useful to suggest ·that evaluation may be one of two kinds. The first is generally referred to as formative evaluation. Forma- tive evaluation is an ongoing and continuous process and generates information that can be used to modify a system while it is in operation. Summative evaluation occurs at the end of an operation and is product oriented. The difference between the two can be summed up by saying the purpose of summative evaluation is to prove; the pur- pose of formative evaluation is to improve. Both types of evaluation have a role in the planning process, and one is not intrinsically better than the other. 16 Referring again to figure 1, one finds that there are two key areas for evaluation to take place. The first is during the develop- ment of the program itself. During this de- velopment, planners are most interested in formative evaluation as they strive to im- prove the program strategy. Methods for such formative evaluation are stressed as a result of comparing alternative programs and developing a pilot or pretest of the pro- gram. Based on these techniques, the pro- gram may be revised or improved before it is actually implemented~ In a more limited sense, formative evalu- ation also takes place in examining the goals and objectives. The needs ,assessment can be seen as a technique of formative evalua- tion during the development of goals and objectives. These more limited, but not less important, formative evaluations are repre- sented in figure 1 with a "D" for decision inside a triangle connected to that planning component where formative evaluation takes place. The evaluation during program develop- ment is process oriented; it examines the program in terms of how it can be improved on an ongoing, continuous basis. In order for thi~ function to be performed, informa- tion must be collected and analyzed about the process. Three steps must be consid- ered to accomplish this. First, one de- lineates or determines what pieces of infor- mation are needed to evaluate the process; second, one obtains that information via a data collection technique; and third, one provides the information to the decision makers in order for the evaluation decision to be made. 17 The second key area for evaluation is product oriented and takes place in two basic areas of the planning process. Return- ing to the program development, it is criti- cal to know if, in fact, the program is a suc- cess or a failure. Thus, during program de- The Planning Process I 463 velopment, measures for summative evalua- tion are devised. These measures, perhaps increasing librarian-patron contact hours by 25 percent, are then used as a basis to de- termine the success or failure of the pro- gram. It should be stressed that multiple evaluation measures for each component as well as the total success of the program should be developed. 18 Similar to the formative evaluation aspect of planning, the summative evaluation also depends on delineating, obtaining, and pro- viding information to ma~e the evaluation decision. This information collection is usu- ally done as part of the monitoring function (see figure 1). By comparing the information from the monitoring activity of the program to the predetermined measures for program success, summative evaluation of the pro- gram is accomplished. The second aspect of summative evalua- tion is accomplished when the results or output from the program are compared to the organizational goals. The question being asked is, "To what degree did this program achieve the stated organizational goals and objectives?" This summative evaluation is effectiveness oriented-"Did we achieve what we wanted to accomplish?" If yes, the program may be judged a success. If no, the program may be judged a failure and either dropped from further use or modified to better accomplish the objective. Finally, the planner must consider the outcomes from the program. Outcomes may be differentiated from outputs (results) in that outcomes are the impact of the outputs on the environment. If the reference librar- ians initiate extensive instructional programs about the use of the library, the output may be better-educated users who have substan- tial competence about the services of the li- brary. However, the outcome of the instruc- tional programs may be a marked increase in the use of the library's materials and ser- vices. If there are not enough materials or staff to accommodate the additional de- mand, the outcome may be dysfunctional to library goals and objectives. Typically, the library as an organization fails to co:?nsider the outcomes, or impacts, of its programs . on the environment. Admittedly, identification-to y no- thing of measurement-of outputs and out- 464 I C allege & Research Libraries • November 1978 comes is difficult. But until we recognize their existence, we cannot identify them; and until we identify them, they cannot be measured. Such measures must be user oriented-determined only in the context of the information environment of the users of the program. 19 It is likely that measures such as awareness can be identified and measured. Identifying and measuring the outputs and outcomes are the challenge of tomorrow for academic library planning. 20 At present there are researchers, such as Douglas Zweizig, who stress the importance of measures of output or services and suggest possible indexes by which such _ measurement can be made. 21 The evaluation process-both summative and formative-is an integral part of organi- zational planning. Planning without evalua- tion . is like taking a test and never knowing how well or poorly you did. The evaluation component in organizational planning pro- vides organizational members With impor- tant feedback to improve the total effective- ness of the organization as a service agency responding to the needs and wants of its patrons. STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS The overview of planning in an academic library that has been presented in this dis- cussion is intended to serve as a general conceptual guide to the planning process as well as a set of suggestions for procedural implementation. Because various library en- vironments are different, readers are urged to develop specific procedures for their li- brary situation. There is no specific set of instructions for the prospective planner to follow that will take into consideration all the various contingencies inherent to a spe- cific library situation. In short, this over- view is a tool by which organizational mem- bers can build a planning process whose use will facilitate the effectiveness of academic library organizations and their responsive- ness to the information environments they serve. However, before members utilize a total approach to organizational planning, some questions need first be asked. Are organiza- tional members willing to accept the re- sponsipilities of the planning process? Are they willing to grow and develop on both a · professional and a personal basis? Are they willing to take risks and to implement strategies for change? Are they willing to step outside the library in an attempt to de- termine user and nonuser needs and wants? Academic library administrators may wish to consider some questions as well. Do you have confidence in your staff to learn how to participate in the planning process? Have you established effective and open channels of communication for information dissemina- tion among all organizational members? Are you willing to experiment with the delega- tion of authority to organizational members? Are you willing to take a personal role of leadership in developing an organizational planning system? Furthermore, library staff members should be aware of their responsibilities during the planning process. Planning as- sumes that organizational mem hers can agree on "appropriate" goals, objectives, programs, and evaluation measures; plan- ning assumes that the staff can direct the ac- tivities of the organization to respond to en- . vironmental needs; planning assumes that the staff is willing to experiment with or- ganizational change; and, finally, planning assumes that librarians can measure the de- gree to which change takes place, the de- gree to which objectives are accomplished, and the impact of various programs on the environment. The experiences of this writer . suggest that the vast majority of academic librarians would welcome such responsibil- ity. Superimposing an organizational planning system on a library organization unwilling to work under these assumptions or unwilling to accept the responsibilities inherent in the planning process will end in frustration, false expectations, and, ultimately, failure. Such failure is not an indication of the value of planning; rather it is an indicator of the degree to which the organizational members were prepared and committed to imple- menting a planning process. For organizations where ongoing planning has not been the rule, a wise strategy might be to spend some months discussing at an organizational level of analysis the impor- tance and framework of planning in that academic library. It is essential that organi- zational information which is to be used in the planning process be readily available to all organizational members. Furthermore, administrators must develop a leadership stance in terms of preparing organizational members to take on the various skills and r~sponsibilities needed for successful plan- ning. To facilitate this preparation, an organiza- tional member (preferably an administrator) who is knowledgeable about planning can be appointed or elected as planning officer. This person then would serve as a catalyst for preparing the organizational members for new responsibilities as well as serving as the person responsible for organizational planning once the planning process is im- plemented. This strategy would demon- strate management's seriousness with the planning process as well as providing a per- son for organizational members to contact should questions arise during the planning process. The planning officer's first task is prepar- ing the organization for the planning pro- cess. A second task for this officer is to lead the organization through the process of de- veloping a mission statement. After the mis- sion statement has been completed, task forces can be created to deal with specific concerns facing the organization by develop- ing programs to accomplish specific objec- tives and evaluating the results. Excuses for not planning abound: too few staff, not enough time, too little money, dispersed geographical locations, too many projects already, too busy solving yester- day's crises, etc. These conditions are con- The Planning Prol?ess I 465 tinuous facts of life for typical library opera- tions and are likely to be with us for some time to come. Changing these conditions begins with making time available for the development of an organizational planning system. ., The development of organizational plan- ning in a systematic and ongoing fashion is crucial for the effectiveness of the library both on an internal and external basis. In- ternally, planning encompasses the entire span of organizational activities, identifies program priorities, encourages rational re- source allocation, and provides a framework of challenge and responsibility for all or- ganizational members. Externally, planning provides a means to respond to environ- mental changes and suggests specific actions to satisfy the needs of various user groups. Perhaps even more important, planning provides proof positive to the library's gov- erning bodies of rational decision making and organizational purpose. The suggestions in this paper can serve as one possible approach to implement organi- zational planning. Those academic libraries interested in new techniques to meet the current and future challenges of providing information services in a complex environ- ment are likely to be more effective with a specific approach to organizational planning than libraries making decisions on a day- to-day basis. Ultimately, the planning pro- cess provides a means for the library to take a leadership role as an integral and dynamic force in accomplishing the educational goals of the college or university. REFERENCES 1. Fremont E. Kast and James E. Rosenzweig, Organization and Management: A Systems Approach (2d ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974}, p.437--40. 2. Ernest R. DeProspo and James W. Liesener, "Media Program Evaluation: A Working Framework," School Media Quarterly 3:290 (Summer 1975). 3. Harold Koontz and Cyril O'Donnel, Man- agement: A Systems and Contingency Analysis of Managerial Functions (6th ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976}, p.130-33. ' 4. Fremont E. Kast and James E. Rosenzweig, "General Systems Theory: Applications for Organization and Management," Academy of Management Journal 15:447~ (Dec. 1972). 5. Ernest R. DeProspo and Alan R. Samuels, A Program Planning and Evaluation Self- Instructional Manual (New York: College En- trance Examination Board, 1977}. 466 I College & Research Libraries • November 1978 6. Archie Donald, "On the Starting of Goals, " journal of Systems Engineering 4:89-95 (Jan. 1976). 7. Kevin D. Reilly, "The Delphi Technique: Fundamentals and Applications," in Harold Borko, ed., Targets for Reseq,rch in Library Education (Chicago: American Library Assn ., 1973), p .187-99. 8. Charles H. Granger, "The Hierarchy of Ob- jectives," Harvard Business Review 42:64-65 (May-June 1964). 9. American Library Association, Public Library Association Goals, Guidelines, and Standards Committee, "A Mission Statement for Public Libraries: Guidelines for Public Library Ser- vice, Part I," American Libraries 8 : 61~20 (Dec. 1977). 10. Adapted from Phillip Kotler, Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, . N.J. : Prentice-Hall, 1975) p.16&-67. 11. Koontz and O'Donnel, Management, p.18~ 86. 12. For additional information on developing. a program budget, see Stephen J. ~p,~zevich, Program Budgeting (Berkeley: ~Cutchan Publishing Corp., 1973). 13. Nan Lin, Foundations of Social Research (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976), p.199-200. 14. A brief explanation of a Gantt (for Henry L. Gantt) and PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) chart may be found in G. Edward Evans, Management Techniques for Librarians (New York: Academic Press, 1976), p.254-59. 15. Edward A. Suchman, "Action for What? A Critique of Evaluation Research," in Carol H. Weiss, Evaluating Action Programs (Bos- ton: Allyn & Bacon, 1972), p.53. 16. Carol H. Weiss, Evaluation Research: Meth- ods of Assessing Program Effectiveness (En- glewood Cliffs, N .J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972), p.1&-17. 17. Daniel L. Stuffiebeam, "The CIPP Model of Evaluation," in David D. Thomson, ed., Planning and Evaluation for Statewide Li- brary Development: New Directions (Colum- bus: Ohio State Univ . Evaluation Center, 1972), p.34-42. 18. An excellent handbook here is Irwin Epstein and Tony Tripodi, Research Techniques for Program Planning, Monitoring, and Evalua- tion (New York: Columbia Univ. Pr., 1977), p.3~110. 19. Douglas L. Zweizig, "With Our Eye on the User: Needed Research for Information and Referral in the Public Library," Drexel Li- brary Quarterly 12:55 (Jan.-April 1976). 20. DeProspo and Samuels, A Program Planning and Evaluation Self-Instructional Manual. 21. Douglas L. Zweizig, "Measuring Library Use," Drexel Library Quarterly 13:3-15 (July 1977).