 I'm Marta Kiddilidoo and it is my pleasure to welcome you to the ERA Library's CoreCard Initiative Webcast. This is the fifth of five webcasts we offered in 2012 and a great one to end the year with. It features some of the opportunities and best practices in deploying strategic metrics in our community and among our member libraries, member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries. Now a couple of logistics, thank you for joining us and make sure please that the way the setup is that everyone is muted to cut down on background noise. We do welcome questions as you heard, please type your questions and ARL staff stands ready to answer all of them and questions and answers that we do not address as well as the ones we addressed during the webcast will be distributed to attendees after the webcast along with the recording. The recording will be available on the YouTube channel. This specific webcast speaks to the core of two ARL strategic outcomes, the building assessment capacity within organizations and supporting individual growth in this area for improved alignment of strategy and metrics and building a community of practice around library assessment. Now there is a history with the Library's CoreCard Initiative. We originally had a webcast back in 2011 and in this slide you can actually see the URL. If you haven't watched that webcast we would strongly encourage you to go to YouTube, the ARL YouTube channel and watch it. Back in 2011 we launched this initiative with four institutions, UVA, University of Virginia, University of Washington, McMaster and Johns Hopkins. In the launch, the launch was also happening with the partnership we had with the Ascent and Strategy Management Group. That first webcast documents the success with the strategy metrics that these four institutions had after the full year implementation of the program. Now these four institutions, we call them cohort one. After the completion of the cohort one experience we launched a cohort two formation and this time around we got 10 libraries and the 10 libraries went through a similar training and balance core card development implementation. Today we have four of these 10 libraries with us from cohort two and also we have one library from cohort one. I do want to mention that we have already reported out there on the experience of cohort two. The second link you see in this slide points to a talk on strategies for successful balance core card implementation that Diane Walker, the Dean of Libraries at Notre Dame and Arnold Hirshen, the Dean of Libraries, the Director of Libraries at Case Western University, they presented at the 160th ARL membership meeting back in May 2012 and the audio from their presentation is also available if you would like to get a perspective from their institutions, both cohort two institutions and in today's webcast actually we also have a colleague from Case Western so let me take a minute to briefly mention all the people that will be featured in today's webcast beyond myself. Mark Cutler is the engagement manager of our partner a sentence strategy management group and he'll give us a bit of background on the balance core card theory. We have two colleagues from Florida State University Rachel Bezara, the assessment librarian there and Michelle Demeter, the academic partnerships librarian. We have a colleague from Canada Mary Mcconnell from the University of Calgary Director of Administration, Libraries and Cultural Resources. We have Gina Midlick from Case Western Reserve University, Nina Servizi who's the Director of Budget and Planning at New York University and another colleague from Canada from McMaster University as I mentioned and from the cohort one group Vivian Lewis Interim University Librarian at McMaster. So briefly the agenda for the day is going to be packed but do keep your questions coming. We are going to cover a little bit of an introduction to the scorecard so everybody knows basic things about it and we will focus specifically on some of the aspects of the implementation of the balance core card. We'll talk about change and the role of leadership. We'll talk about readiness regarding strategy development from the library perspective and readiness for strategy development from the university perspective. We'll focus on how you develop initiatives to foster the strategic goals and objectives. How you engage in strategy review and refresh and the rationale and value of having strategic metrics and of course we look forward to your questions and answers. Now before we go with the first of our presenters Mark we have a poll for you and my colleague is going to push a poll question to you and the poll question you can see on your screen asks what is the current status of your library in terms of strategic planning and you have three possible answers. Our first answer is our library is developing a strategic plan now. The second our library already has a strategic plan and the third option our library has a strategic plan with measures and if you'll take a minute to answer that my colleague will close the poll and we have 52 libraries that are in the process of developing a strategic plan now. 26% of the respondents have a strategic plan and 21% have a strategic plan with measures. This is great. This is a great distribution. As you will hear at the end of the webcast we do plan to launch after the webcast a call for another cohort and we hope some of you will be interested in joining the cohort that will be working on the balance scorecard in 2013 and 2014. So what is the balance scorecard? Mark? For joining us today I appreciate all the participation. As Martha said my name is Mark Culler. I'm one of the consultants with Ascendant Strategy Management Group that helped lead the balance scorecard cohort to this past year and what I'm going to do is I'm going to explain the scorecard to you with an illustrative case. So with that I'd like to just jump in. First of all the executing strategy using the balance scorecard framework is a three-step process we will take you through. It involves planning, measuring and responding. When we were planning we were asking where are we going and to do that we develop a purpose or mission for the organizations and we develop what we call a strategy map, a one-page view of the organization strategy. Respect to measuring we want to see are we there yet are we getting to where you want to go with your strategy and we do that through measures and targets. Then finally in the third step we respond. We see how we can react based on the data we gather through our measures and we use initiatives to respond to those the data we get with our measures and then we review and revise our strategy. That's the basic three-step process. The illustrative case that I wanted that I'm going to take you through is about Duke Children's Hospital. It's a hospital in North Carolina that is a pediatric hospital. It's one of those hospitals that you don't really want if you're a child you don't really want to find yourself at. However if you are there you know you're getting the best care you can possibly get. So give you a little background on Duke Children's Hospital. In 1992-93 it was about 800 employees specializing in treating sick children with acceptable losses of two million dollars per year and an average of a $10,500 per case. In the mid-1990s the struggles were ongoing for the organization. People described the hospital as a question of fiefdoms where each group from accountants to clinicians was focusing on its individual goal rather than on the organization as a whole. Nearly everyone complained that applying a systematic approach to cost management that they wanted to apply was quote cookbook medicine not really the way to practice medicine. So in 1996 the fallout began. They were having 11 million dollars per year in losses due to reductions in federal managed care reimbursement rates. The average cost per case exceeded $14,800. There was low patient and staff satisfaction. The programs were slated for elimination and services were targeted for reductions. At this point the head of DCH knew they needed to do something different to get out of the situation and he decided to adopt the balance scorecard framework to implement their strategy. First thing they did in developing the scorecard was they first looked at where they were and where they needed to go. They developed what we call the change agenda. This is kind of, you know, in several key areas of the organization where they felt they were either the past or present and where they need to go into the future. So for example, with respect to experience, they felt that they were in the past or present they were doing things by the book sterile medical care focused on the patient. They wanted to move to a the organization that includes family and decision-making care. With respect to procedures, they originally felt that really each case is unique and there's no standards that can be implemented to solve cases that they wanted to move to be an organization that utilizes standards or quote, clinical pathways. The bottom line of the organization, they had acceptable losses but they wanted to move to being more sustainable and have a margin for growth. With respect to the revenues, they were formerly insurance driven but they wanted to move to being an organization that had more donors and more research grants to increase the revenues. With respect to advocacy, something they didn't really do in the past and present, they wanted to move to be more actively engaged in community and telling inspiring stories recurring in their hospital. To their team, they wanted to move from being a traditional medical staff siloed and fighting between clinical managerial teams to a team of integrated United Teams proud to give some of the sickest children a second chance at life. Scorecard Framework is made up of perspectives that outline the major goals of the organization. At the top of the framework, you have your mission which answers the question, what is our plan to achieve our mission and vision? Supporting this, we have a customer perspective and a financial perspective. The customer perspective tells us or answers the question, to achieve our mission, how much we look to our customers or the financial perspective answers the question, if we succeed, how we look to our donors or taxpayers. Supporting the customer and financial perspective, we have the internal perspective which answers the question, to satisfy our customers and financial donors, which business processes must we excel at? And finally, supporting all of this is a learning and growth perspective which answers the question, to achieve our mission, how much our organization will learn and improve? Within each of these perspectives I outlined, there's going to be strategic objectives that tell you the kind of things you want to do or need to do for your organization strategically in the next three to five years. Duke Children's Hospital developed a strategy map with their mission at the top of excellence in the clinical care of infants and children, innovation in basic and applied research, advocacy for children's health and leadership, children's health and leadership in the education of healthcare professionals. To support their mission, for their customer perspective, their objectives, they voiced in the voice of the customer, or in this case, not really that customer isn't chosen, but the parents. They wanted parents to believe that we received the best care at DCH that we felt included in the treatment and care. On the financial side, they needed to achieve financial stability. To do this, they wanted to diversify sources of revenue and attract more grant money. To achieve their goals and their objectives in the customer financial perspective, they had an internal perspective supporting it, which was made up three key themes of excellence, innovation and advocacy. With respect to excellence, they wanted to reduce waste and maintain a broad scope of quality services, and also create and utilize successful clinical pathways. For innovation, they wanted to increase partnerships and affiliations and develop strategic knowledge databases. For advocacy, they wanted to publish inspiring stories to increase awareness and attend and contribute to professional conferences. In underlying this, in a learning and growth perspective, what they called organizational leadership, that they wanted to engage our professionals with cutting edge training and opportunities to heal and support leading research. They felt that they could achieve these two objectives, strategic objectives in organizational leadership perspective, it would enable them to do their internal process as well as excel, innovate and advocacy, which would help them achieve their objectives with respect to their customers and their finances and ultimately deliver on their mission of excellence, innovation, advocacy and leadership. So that's the planning stage of the balanced scorecard. Next, I want to discuss measures a little bit and how they use measures and develop measures. Measures, as you'll see on the next slide, must be tied to objectives. And there's really a logic involved in developing measures for specific objectives. If you look at these bubbles in sort of the center of the slide, you'll see these are the objectives from the strategy map, the left side of the strategy map. You'll see, engage our professionals with cutting edge opportunities to heal. They felt they needed to recruit, equip and encourage their team to do this, to encourage their professionals with cutting edge opportunities to heal. The questions they asked themselves to develop the measures for this is, what must we do well to achieve the objective? Needed to attract top talent with opportunities to heal and keep them around high, which led to them to selecting measures of percent of staff satisfaction and a number of research papers published. Next thing they need to do is do what they do best, or create and utilize successful clinical pathways. What were the measures that would help them achieve these? They wanted to utilize best practices and reduce waste errors. Waste and errors, the measures they chose were the dollar cost per case and productivity ratings. The next objective is maintain a broad scope of quality services. They wanted to be able to respond to patients' needs with these broad scope of services. And they asked the question, how we know if we're responding sufficiently and how does the industry measure effectiveness? And the measures they decided to use were a number of services available, accreditation quality ratings, and a number of acquired infections. And then finally, for the last objective, a patient family, having a patient family say we received the best care at DCH, they wanted to be able to comfort families to help achieve their mission. And how would they know if they succeeded in this case? They would do it by a percent of patient and family satisfaction, the percent of readmission rates, and the number of positive press. If you turn to the next page, you'll see how we actually got the data for these measures and followed this logic. So on the right-hand side of this slide, you see patient satisfaction increased from 86% to 94%. Readmission rates fell from 7% to 3%. Infections 1,000 fell and cost per case fell dramatically from 1993 to 2010. In addition, staff satisfaction increased from 30% to 80%. The next page, it shows some of the kind of measured detail that is required in developing your measures. I don't want to go into this too much, but just to say that there's more behind the measure than just that one statement of, say, percent of readmission rate. We had to understand the rationale, the frequency, the source of the data, what the chart looked like, and the kind of actions it would take from the measures. The last part of the balance scorecard framework that we concentrated on is initiatives, or the key projects that your organization is doing. And many organizations have hundreds of these key projects or initiatives. An important part about them is to make sure that they're aligned with your organization strategy or your objectives. So you see here is a chart we use to rationalize objectives. On the next page, you'll see how you should look at your objectives and your supporting initiatives and see which objectives are actually being supported by initiatives. You should not expect objectives to improve that additional support from initiatives. So you see in the highlighted rows here the objectives that don't have any initiatives supporting it. So how do you expect in your organization to improve your work on these objectives without having initiatives supporting them? By the same token, on the next slide, you'll see the highlighted columns of initiatives that don't support any objectives. So these are areas that you can find, you can cut these particular initiatives and get funding for more strategic initiatives, because in this case, new artwork, new mops and a new helicopter that the organization was trying to adopt wasn't supporting anything that was strategically important to the organization. So they could reconsider what they actually needed and what they needed to do to refund that money to help support their strategic initiatives. Anyway, this is the framework that you children possibly use to execute their strategy and they got they got success and, you know, real results from this. As I mentioned earlier, their cost for a case went down dramatically from a high of about $15,000 per case to below $9,000 per case. Their net margin went from negative to positive over the same period and some of their innovations and contributions to medicine could break through enzyme treatment, new drugs that success when treating newborns as long as they're unable to oxygenate their blood. They were named one of the best hospitals to 2007, voted one of the best doctors from 2011-2012 and US News and More Report said it was one of the best medical schools in 2011. So this is an organization implemented the balanced scorecard and had positive results to help the organization achieve its strategy. That's it. Wonderful. Thank you, Mark. This is a truly inspiring story. We don't want to be at the Children's Hospital but if we are at a place like the Duke Children's Hospital we're confident we'll be getting good service. So now let's take a look at some of the library efforts especially from our colleagues in Florida State, Rachel and Michelle. Hi, thanks. So we're first going to talk about implementing the balanced scorecard during change and the importance of leadership during those changes. So the first thing we want to talk about is the balanced scorecard plan or process overview. So why did we choose the balanced scorecard? First off it's a streamlined strategic plan instead of having our current 20-page strategic plan we have something now that fits on one page and is easy to kind of explain to everybody who is involved in the library. So it helps us facilitate a more direct involvement at all levels whether we're talking to administrators, staff or librarians. Everybody kind of sees a little more clearly how they would directly be involved in the actual strategic planning of the library. It also allows us to have a stronger commitment to measure-based initiatives. So while we're all doing projects in the library, very few of us are tying those two measures that show exactly how we have progressed in our fulfillment of that initiative. And finally, it gives us transparency of the organization. So our library, I don't know about everyone else's, but Florida State University libraries are pretty big. We have three main branches just on our Kala Hassee campus alone and having a balanced scorecard like this will allow us to have better communication and more transparency as to what each department is doing. Our expected implementation plan, we had our initial planning phase and we just completed our road shows and presentations where as a team we went out to every department and unit in the library and we talked about how we're going to implement scorecard in their specific unit. And we're going to now work on coordinating with individual departments to create those plans and then integrate them with ClearPoint. So let's take a look at what our balanced scorecard looked like since we're talking about change. This is what our balanced scorecard looked like about four months into the process. We basically had a strategy mapped out and we had the main ideas on here. Now we knew that we were going to be going through some leadership change as an organization because we had two open leadership positions and we knew that we had some work we needed to do on our strategy map in a few areas and it would make some changes. But I think we didn't expect the changes to be quite as much as they were. And if you look at what our strategy map looked like in December of this year you can see that you can see I've highlighted the different changes that we've made. You can see that there's quite a difference in the map. We've changed about half of it. Interestingly the core concepts are all the same but we've actually tightened the language a lot and the changes that we've had as an organization that Michelle is going to talk about in just a moment really shaped the map and improved it and made it better. So now Michelle is going to talk about some of the changes that we went through as an organization. So at FSU I think we probably experienced a little more change than perhaps other libraries. We had several leadership positions that were both filled and vacated within the past year. We had two associate dean's who joined the library. Two associate deans, one of whom had just joined left to be deans or directors in the summer of 2012. So while we have currently filled one of the associate dean positions which actually started last week we have our other open position beginning in January. So we're anticipating that there's more change down the line and we are preparing for that as we speak. In the interim there was the position of associate dean for administration created. This was a position, this was a person who already worked in the library but her duties and title kind of shifted. And then we also experienced the restructuring of public services, ILL collections access, collection development and technical services which pretty much covers every department in our library. So we really kind of had to adjust at various places to make sure that we were keeping on track with the balance scorecard. Looking more closely at the shifts within the balance scorecard team we can see that some of these changes also affected the composition of our team and how we functioned. At the beginning there were two assessment librarians assigned to the team and those two assessment librarians are still the same and they still hold their position on the team. The associate dean of public services left in June and she was replaced by a public services librarian. The associate dean of collections, the associate dean of administration and complex cataloging coordinator all of those positions have remained the same on the team. However, all of them have experienced a change in title, a change in duty and a change in responsibilities which has affected their individual work progress and also the progress of the team in general. Finally we have the associate dean of technology who used to be on the team but she left and whether she'll be replaced on the new team whether the new associate dean of technology or even whether the associate dean of public services will rejoin the team is unclear at the moment. So we're kind of waiting to see what kind of fun changes are looking ahead. So having went through all of these changes we kind of want to talk about what the project implications are because we certainly didn't plan to have as much change. We planned for some change but not this much. So the drawbacks are kind of obvious it slows down the implementation because you know you have all these new people that you need to acclimate and you have all these different ideas that you need to take in. There's a certain amount of project fatigue and confusion that sets in because you know you roll out that we're going to be doing this balance scorecard initiative and we start that in the summer of 2011 and in the winter of 2012 we're still working on that and also the balance scorecard by the body of the staff can be perceived as rather abstract because they haven't actually seen a complete all the way down rollout. It's been something that's talked about more among the leadership and the leadership of the different departments and less down to the very bottom level of the staff. However, there are many benefits that actually came along with this as well that we didn't really anticipate which is that we had much better defined and refined objectives, initiatives and measures. We've really had a chance to talk about these as a team and as an organization in a way that we didn't before we wouldn't have had if we would have done a faster implementation. We've had an increased opportunity for discussion and education among the staff especially with the road shows that we've done this fall and the communication and outreach we've done. I feel that we've done a much better job reaching out to the staff and getting their input. We've had more time for critical analysis of our map. You can see that even though when we talked about our two maps but even though we had the map set at first that we really made some changes whenever we looked at it critically and we discussed it with new members. It's been a great tool to integrate and acclimate new hires that we can show them this map and say this is where we are as an organization and this is where we're thinking and that can kind of be a starting point for discussion or a center of discussion. And it's really acted as an anchor during change. When we've had all of these different shifts and changes it's been a point that stays relatively the same and has been a basis an anchor for everyone in the organization. So when we think about the lessons that we've learned from implementing this during such a time of change we really want to say you should assume there will be leadership changes. We assumed there would be we didn't assume there would be this many and we need to plan for that change at all levels and one way that you can really do this is by creating succession materials. So whenever you're learning about balance scorecards yourself put together little packets as you go along to kind of summarize where you're at and what you've learned and where you're going because this will be really useful when you're bringing new members on board. Be flexible and realistic in your timelines because there's going to be changes and there's going to be roadblocks. And if you're aware of them you're going to be able to work around them and that's really important to keep in mind. Plan to incorporate new ideas. There's got we had so many wonderful insights from the people that are coming on board and things we didn't even think about including before. So make sure that you leave room for those new ideas when people are coming on and use that lost time. So it seems like downtime. Use that lost time to communicate and educate the staff. It's been a really valuable experience for us who's gotten a lot of wonderful feedback and been able to talk to an organization on a level that we hadn't wouldn't have been able to without. And use the scorecard to emphasize continuity. It's one thing that really doesn't change. This is the tool we're going to be using and this is the general shape and look that it's going to have. But it's also an opportunity to celebrate the change. So look how we're getting better. Look how we're improving. Even before you get to full implementation it's a tool that you can use to do this. So we're really looking forward to moving ahead as an organization and really excited about the new leadership that's coming on board and the changes that have happened and seeing how this improves our process even more. And we look forward to staying in touch with your future changes too. Now I do have a question about branch libraries in the system and how they've been affected by system changes. Are there branch libraries at the Florida State System where they affected at all any leadership state changes at the branch library level? So with the main branch libraries, yes. The main like branch libraries that we've talked about have had leadership changes on the department head level even during this time and that has impacted our presentation of the strategy maps especially when we're doing those outreach and roadshow pieces we've been discussing with the leadership at the different branch libraries how they see their branch contributing to the balance scorecard specifically and the initiatives and measures and which objectives they're contributing directly to in the next year. And we've had some really fruitful discussions and it's been a great starting point for those kinds of discussions. Very good, very good. Yep, it was one of the participants that was asking that question. Thank you. So let's move a little from down south in Florida to North in Canada Calgary. Mary? Greetings from Calgary. In our case we needed to consider the strategic planning process at the University of Calgary as well as some significant happenings within libraries and cultural resources in determining when it was the right time to introduce our strategic scorecard initiative. University of Calgary was founded in 1966. There's currently about 31,000 students 4,700 staff. Libraries and cultural resources has a staff of about 250 and our convergence brings together the University Library main and branches the University Archives, Art Gallery, the Library and Archives of the Military Museums and the University Press. In 2010 we had an organizational realignment to focus on broad outcomes across our whole organization. So we have collections, research support, learning services and scholarly communication. As mentioned, we are members of cohort two. We've had three staff members participating in this since June 2011. We introduced the initiative at staff councils at that time, drafted our strategy map, discussed it with a senior leadership group and did some preliminary work on our measures, targets and initiatives. However, we soon realized that we weren't yet ready to proceed full steam ahead for reasons related to both the University and to libraries and cultural resources. Beginning in January 2011 the University undertook a major strategic planning exercise and launched a new strategic plan the following September. That would be September 2011. With an eyes-high vision of by our 50th anniversary in 2016 we will be one of Canada's top five research universities. And soon after that there was consultation on the academic plan to develop a roadmap for achieving the vision and that was introduced in April 2012. Soon afterwards the strategic research plan was developed and that incorporated the academic priorities and it was completed in July 2012. So we needed to make sure that our balance scorecard aligned with all three of these plans. But at the same time closer to home libraries and cultural resources was literally on the move. Two new buildings in 2011. The Taylor Family Digital Library is the physical convergence of libraries, archives, art museum and scholarly publishing. And in January 2011 we moved learning services into the first two floors of the building. However by April that year because of engineering and construction issues we had to make a very difficult decision to move back into our old facility. So between September and November of that year we gradually moved services programs and most of the staff into the building or in some cases back into the building. And our collection moves were also affected by these building issues. And the building on the right the High Density Library that's about 10 kilometers from the main campus and that's our remote storage facility for less used materials of all formats. It's been fully operational since September 2012 and to date there's over 1.8 million items stored there. So with these things going on all these disruptions and changes we the team realized that we needed to step back and wait for the dust to settle before we really got into the balance scorecard process. And it the dust did settle and we started up again. We made sure we had clear objectives about aligning with the university strategy providing support for the academic planning and priorities and making sure that we engaged our staff as much as we could in the strategic planning. In early 2012 we made a presentation to the senior leadership group to resell the initiative and we found a case study exercise that was provided by Ascendant to be particularly effective in this. We had a full day retreat with the senior leadership group in late April and that resulted in a strategy map a newer strategy map that has changed very little since then. What did we do to engage our staff? We expanded the core team from three to six. We had a series of staff presentations to reintroduce the initiative. We held a strategy map Olympics last August along with the London Olympics and so that staff could learn more about the balance scorecard provide input for the measures development indicate interest in more involvement and just gave them a chance to ask questions and provide feedback. We've developed a lib guide for information for the staff to refer to and also set up an email account for feedback and on the screen you'll see the strategy map that we have come up with and it is in very close alignment with the eyes high vision as well as the academic and research plans. So in addition to the strategy map we are now working on a strategic change agenda. This was mentioned by Mark Cutler earlier in the presentation and this is an excellent tool for getting the process back on track. We are working on or we have completed an inventory of current initiatives and we're working on how they align with a strategic objective and we're starting to work on our measures. On the next slide there is a list of our valuable resources and sources of support that we have had and that we take a bit I'd recommend taking advantage of each and every one of them. It's always reassuring to find that there are synergies with the initiatives with other initiatives that are going on for example we're preparing for the next lip call survey and our strategy map is firmly in hand to refer to. We are pleased to see the communication plan that came out elsewhere in libraries and cultural resources and it's directly all the goals there are directly related to our strategic objectives and we certainly used it a lot in university planning documents for resource allocation staffing plans, space studies and what have we learned? It's so important to gain support from your senior management and keep them informed all along the way. Remember to consider all parts of your organization in developing objectives and measures. For instance in our case we're not just libraries we have archives and museums and we need to consider them in our work to have them engaged as well. Keep up the momentum and be creative in finding ways to keep the staff involved especially when we had to stop and start like that and finally be prepared to take a step back and adapt the timetable as necessary. The timing really does need to be right for the process to work. Thanks. Very, very good. Thank you so much Mary and sharing the lessons learned and next Nina Cervici from NYU New York University will share with us lessons learned at NYU. Thank you Martha. What I would like to talk about today are how we went about developing our strategic initiatives. I'm going to discuss and review a little bit the process we use and then talk about the specific challenges and how we address those challenges as we went through our strategic initiative planning. NYU is in a transition phase. We're currently moving from an old strategic plan our 2008-2012 plan to a new plan for 2013 to 2017. This new plan is the first time that we have tried using the balance scorecard and the possibility of joining the cohort came at the perfect time. In fall of 2011 we actually began doing environmental scans at all of our in all of our divisions to gather data to use in the development of the goals for the new strategic plan and we actually had the goals and outcomes written by June of 2012 and the staff at the libraries were introduced to the new goals in June. After June we began turning our attention to the next steps and of course before we can move forward we needed to begin thinking of initiatives for the entire division. Our new plan actually has eight goals and the strategy map shows how we actually distributed those goals across the library initiatives. So the division of libraries at NYU had a couple of very particular challenges as we were developing the strategic plan. The first challenge that we had is not only do we have the libraries here in New York City that serve the university we also have portal campuses globally to consider we currently have a portal campus in Abu Dhabi and in 2013 in the fall we will be opening a new portal campus in Shanghai. So we had to decide on goals that would address the needs not only of the libraries in New York but also the libraries that will be on the Abu Dhabi and Shanghai campuses. The division of libraries also includes New York University Press and this was also quite a challenge because goals that may be very important for libraries may not be so easily used and for the NYU University Presses. So what we actually did is we ran separate balance scorecard initiative training for the New York University Press and we discussed thoroughly with them how the goals of the division of libraries may also be used and considered useful for the New York University Press. Now as we began developing initiatives we started in June how we went about developing the initiative were to develop teams for each of the eight goals. The teams were four to five people who were considered to have some direct interest in those goals and the teams were asked to think of division-wide initiative and that would be of a one to two year duration. In the end the teams produced 32 goals or 32 initiatives I'm sorry. In July and August the draft initiatives were reviewed and edited by our departmental managers group and then in early September 2012 senior management then edited reviewed and if necessary actually removed initiative from the the list of initiatives and what they were really concentrating on during this review was what was the strategic value of that initiative and whether or not that strategic value actually met a division-wide need. Once they had reviewed the initiative the senior management also assigned leads and senior sponsors or each initiative. Once this process was finished the initiatives were actually reduced to 27 which is of course a much more manageable number. In late September we began to revise the revised initiatives and the leads were introduced and they were discussed at the same department managers and strategic planning group retreats. So what we've had throughout our process is a continual review at multiple levels of what we're doing to make sure that we're not missing important areas of library operations. Finally, the finalized initiatives were distributed to all the library staff in November and what we're now asking is that individual departments look at the division-wide initiatives and begin to think about what the implications of those initiatives are for their department. As we were creating the initiatives we ran into some particular challenges that needed to be addressed. The first challenge that we faced was that we had too many initiatives and that of course was a sign of too much enthusiasm. So for example we found that one of our goals actually had seven initiatives which would be much too much to handle in a one to two year period. So to address this problem we actually had to select well first we had to prioritize and then select the top initiatives for that goal. The next challenge was that many of the goals many of the initiatives as they were given to us were actually not measurable. They were either too complex or they addressed areas that may actually be better suited for another goal. So in our example here you can see that it actually is one initiative that seems to encompass two very distinct objectives the first being developing in-house expertise and the next being prioritizing the organization's digital infrastructure. In cases like this the goals were looked at and we asked the teams to rewrite the initiatives in this particular case since it does have two very distinct objectives and both of those objectives were better addressed in other goals. This goal was actually eliminated. The next initiative that we challenged that we had was that many of the initiatives didn't address the strategic needs of the division. The initiative as written was actually very narrowly focused and was more appropriate as a departmental initiative. So for example purchase and install archival shelving for special collections currently stored on the bookshelf is a good initiative for our special collections however it's not quite broad enough to be considered a division wide initiative. So what we did in these cases is we reviewed the initiative and whenever possible we tried to rewrite the initiative so that it would be more appropriate for the entire division or if that wasn't possible the initiative would be referred to an individual department. So for example in this case the reworked initiative work with architects and construction planning to ensure adequate and proper housing for physical materials in all formats was in fact the goal that had importance for the division of libraries. The final challenge you ran into is that many goals were operational rather than strategic. So for example initiative to review charges and membership of existing library committees is actually an operational function that already occurs in the library every year. And so there was no need to put this as an initiative. In these cases most of these types of operational initiatives were simply deleted. So next step is to have these division-wide initiatives distributed through the various departments of the libraries to ask the individual departments to customize their initiatives at the departmental and at times unit level and to create reporting out mechanisms and the schedule for hearing those reports. So what we're doing right now is really concentrating on creating measures that are appropriate for each initiative and each goal. Thank you. Thank you very much Nina. And let's move to Gina from Case Western. Thanks Martha. Hi everyone. We had an ideal situation here at Case Western when the opportunity came for us to participate in the cohort to balance the core card initiative. The university had just completed their strategic plan forward thinking so it was well underway by the start of the academic year in 2010. At that time Calvin Smith library brought on board our associate provost and university librarian Arnold Hirshon who immediately began the process of developing a strategic plan for the library. We went through a very rapid planning cycle that began with our library staff assigned to groups completing environmental scans for changes and trends affecting academic libraries. We then brought in an outside consultant who facilitated a number of focus groups. They gathered input from library staff, faculty and administrators that generated our mission, vision, values as well as our goals and objectives. As the plan was developing we hosted a number of open forums for all of the campus community to provide feedback and we then incorporated that feedback into the final draft of our strategic plan. At that point we had a lot of buy-in from the campus community and within five months the plan was complete and approved by the faculty senate. This placed us in an ideal situation to join the bounce scorecard cohort two group. So what we took with us to that first meeting of the cohort was a completed plan that outlined our mission and vision which at the time we were in the process of developing a new organization that emanated from the mission and vision. Our goals, we didn't create any new goals for the library. We felt that the easiest way to align with the university's goals was to just use the university goals as the library's goals. Our objectives were a result of all of the feedback from the focus groups meetings and discussions throughout the entire planning process. We kept our objectives to a reasonable amount that could actually be measured and tracked within the time frame of our plan. And then we were in the implementation stage of a full staff reorganization as well as the process of changing our budget structure to fit the new organization to allow for more effective spending and assessment. We felt that the bounce scorecard was an integral part of an unnatural outgrowth from our whole strategic planning process. It wasn't just an independent exercise. So what we came back with from the first cohort meeting was the following strategy map. Our strategy map has stayed relatively the same since we created it. We've made adjustments and used it most effectively as a communication tool for each of our new teams to see where and how they fit within each of the strategic objectives. We had a number of meetings with staff on every level starting with our leadership team including the associate provost our associate directors and the team leaders. And then we met with the team leaders and their individual teams to go through the bounce scorecard process. And we also met with the entire staff as a whole so that everyone was hearing the same information and they were understanding the reason for the strategy map. You know the benefits of mapping our objectives and the direction that we wanted to move forward in showing the progress of our plan. I found that communicating within the various formats seemed to help bring out a lot of questions and concerns and to address all of the issues even if I had to repeat sessions it was okay. Everyone seemed to be on board with the process and we also found that it was really important to communicate how new projects or assignments or changes fit within the strategy map as we moved forward so that our staff was able to see the strategy behind the decisions being made. So where are we today? We've already identified measures for each of our objectives and we've developed initiatives and targets for each. Right now we're in the process of gathering data and developing dashboards that we can use to demonstrate our progress to date. Martha's asked me to share an example of one of our measures and initiatives. So the next two slides show how our strategic objective of implementing a strategy to grow relevant and valuable collections that support teaching and research and expand the availability of and access to scholarly content. Our team leaders met regularly and they still do in order to identify ways in which we can measure and demonstrate the progress of our objectives. This specific example involves three of our teams contributing to this measure. The research services team will identify relevance and gaps within the current collection as a result of a citation analysis and reviewing interlibrary loan and consortium borrowing requests. The demand-driven acquisitions project is adding relevant collections that patrons can immediately download. We made targeted purchases to support our alliance areas and new faculty and we're making an effort to have any borrowed materials return to the shelves within a 24-hour time period so collections are accessible. The last slide is a visual concept that we want to use to demonstrate to the university community the progress that we're making. The team leaders along with the leadership team held a day-long retreat that discussed each of the dashboards for the objectives. We found that in many cases we were on the right path with the data we were collecting. We also found that in some cases the data we were collecting wasn't exactly what we needed so we had discussions and determine what we needed and then made those changes within our measures. We found that sometimes the qualitative data demonstrated more progress than the quantitative. So it's important to have the balance of both. We're still very much in the process of pulling together the dashboards and it's still quite a learning experience for us but I think the process has been invaluable to all of us here at Covenson Library. Thank you. Thank you Gina. We do have a question that actually is addressed to all of you probably who decides priorities when you have multiple initiatives. And let me I'll call on each one of you just because I think almost every one of you have a perspective on that. Gina. What we did is within that that document on the previous slide for each one of our objectives we have a team that's responsible for for part of the initiative that would lead to the progress of that objective. So each team leader has a responsibility and then within the team that team leader has assigned priorities to an individual staff member and what we did is we've tied some of the initiatives to an individual staff person's annual review progress report. So that is goals within their review period for the next review session. So we do have individuals that are targeted to contribute to one of the objectives. Nina and NYU any input on deciding priorities regarding multiple initiatives? When we have multiple initiatives that may have competing priorities what we try to do is to discuss those initiatives at the department manager's group meeting. That way all the department managers can weigh in and give their opinion of just how important the initiative may or may not be to their area and when possible we try to have the means to actually address as many initiatives as we can. That said there are times when you just don't have enough resources and if we can't come to any agreement at the department manager's group meeting then the final decision is made by senior management who will look at the initiatives and then make the decision based on resources available. Yep, thank you. Mary? We're not that far along to be setting priorities but it would be in discussion with the senior leadership group. Thank you. And Rachel or Michelle? So at Florida State we've been talking about initiatives and the priorities are being set by the department heads and the associate deans on those various areas of what gets worked on and what has the priority. Very good. And our next guest speaker Vivian Lewis. Vivian, if you can also address this issue in your segment that would be wonderful. Vivian? Certainly, Martha. I'll be happy to do that at Segway then really nicely. So my focus this afternoon is on the critical period following implementation and I'm looking at the issue of how you review your scorecard with your leadership group and with your staff. Now on reflection I realize that I'm really talking about the after party and we launch our scorecards with great fanfare and what really comes next is the important part. And unfortunately, as many of us have experienced sometimes not as much happens after the launch as we would hope or it doesn't happen in as quick of a framework as we would like. And in that case, the scorecard can fall into disuse or even some disrepute and that's not something that we want to happen. So what we really need to do is to live the scorecard not just to launch it and that's really my focus this afternoon. So at McMaster we implemented relatively quickly and looking back at every stage in our implementation process we actually thought we had done the hardest part. So when we went through the mission and vision we thought that perhaps that was the hardest part or when we implemented our strategic objectives we thought that was the hardest part or when we actually came up with our set of measures perhaps that was the hardest part. The reality is going public with our scorecard and publishing that glossy brochure was truly the easy part. And the process of implementing scorecard actually requires a tremendous amount of work. The other piece is that the scorecard implementation requires a huge amount of bravery on the part of both the leadership team and on behalf of the staff. So from the leadership team's perspective it requires a commitment to allow deep and regular conversation with the staff about the strategic directions and about the metrics. Not just at the implementation process but throughout the course of the life of that scorecard so over the long haul over many years. And from the staff's perspective it also requires a lot of bravery to in some cases suggest new directions or suggest new measures that may have an impact not only on the organization but on individual departments and individual staff. So one of the key components of the McMaster implementation has been complete public disclosure and I'll encourage you all to take a look at our website and we link our objectives our measures and all of our initiatives together on at the URL that's indicated on your slide. We post our full project plans we post not just the metrics or the formulas of what we're going to gather but we post the actual data itself even when it isn't very good and that I think is an important thing to remember. So if you go to our website this is actually what you'll see. You'll see that we've tried very hard to put the score back in the scorecard and so and it's up on your website right now. You'll see each of our metrics is listed and the metrics themselves they're hot linked. You'll see the score that we've assigned ourselves and in this case we're showing a mixture of reds greens and yellows of course greens meaning that we're very successful. Yellows meaning we're on our way but we're not there yet and reds of course meaning that more work needs to be done. And then you'll also see links to the strategic initiatives that we've identified as being necessary to fill that gap between our targets and our reality and that's all publicly available. And if you move on to the next slide you'll see an example of an actual scorecard measure. In this case what you're seeing is the formula and the actual data and a small visual associated with one of our measures. This one is content in our institutional repository and it's all there and as soon as that data is updated with the leadership team then a new version of the scorecard goes out. And if you actually from our scorecard clicked on one of our strategic initiatives you would see the template providing you with the objectives, the milestones, the members of the team and then with one more click you'll get to the most recent project update for that particular initiative. And in this case we ask each of our strategic leads three basic questions. What have you done since your last report? What do you intend to do during the coming months? And what challenges do you face in actually being successful? And we ask this of them two times a year. And that's in some ways how we make it work. But if you move on to the next slide you'll see our actual strategy calendar and this is the commitment that we make to the staff and to our campus community. And this tells you that every single month we're committed to a specific activity and the activities roll through the year. And just by way of examples you'll see that the leadership team discusses all the metrics and all of the initiatives associated with the user perspective twice a year in September and then again in January. And the same process happens with learning and growth, with internal process and with financial. In December we commit to having some kind of update for our staff, give them a sense of how we're doing so far, give them some review time with the metrics. The metrics are all up on the public website but it gives them that opportunity to talk about it as a group. And then when it comes to May, June we have an opportunity for the staff to talk with us about changes they think as being necessary in both the strategic initiatives and with the metrics. Then the whole package of information goes back to the leadership team and they have an opportunity to do the final review and refresh so that come August we're ready to go live again with a new version of our scorecard. So bringing it all back to the beginning with the question that was asked from the floor, who decides? I think the answer for McMaster is fairly clear. The balance scorecard team can make recommendations but at the end of the day it's the leadership team that has ultimate responsibility for the strategic plan and for the success of the organization so ultimately they are the ones that decide the final scope of the calendar, the final scope of the metrics and the strategic initiative link. So I think I'll conclude it here and turn the floor back to Martha. And Vivienne we have a question that I think you and Mark maybe afterwards can answer since you both have most experience with the balance scorecard implementation how long should a library expert how long do they have to engage in the balance scorecard implementation to get their program functional? That's an interesting question Martha. The time issue it's hard to make a definitive answer I can only speak on behalf of my own particular organization and in our case we were able to move along fairly quickly and we honestly did not want the process to be belabored. It was not going to be a helpful thing to our organization to go through an extensive long and belabored belabored process and so we committed ourselves to doing mission vision and values over a few months. We committed our organization to spending approximately three, four months on the strategic direction and then probably another three months or so on the measures but the issue is it's never finished and so that's why it rolls back into the calendar. You're never done. Yep. The continuous process. Mark? And Mark, Martha, I think that that's right what Vivian said it depends on the size of your organization the number of participants involved and those sorts of things but you can see it be from anywhere from six months to a year maybe some organizations a little quicker three, four, five months but it's it is a long process and it's an iterative process so once you build your scorecard and your strategy map and your measures which could take you know two to three months and then start closing in and reporting it's a long process but it's a matter of getting into the kind of drum beat and doing that and after I'd say an average organization six months or so you should be able to do that first report and actually have the system up and going and start to see some results. Yeah, thank you Mark. I knew from our perspective we do consider the development of metrics and tools the ones we have in the status quo platform like the ARL statistics and live call and climate call and Mines for Libraries we consider all of them works in progress we constantly strive to improve them and make them more relevant and we learn from all the libraries that are implementing them and clearly the scorecard initiative helps us understand which of these are more strategic for the changing environment libraries are in nowadays. So we will be putting a call for participation all of you that registered for this webcast will be receiving one we if you have any questions from this webcast in the meantime feel free to get in touch with me we have a lot of resources available and this slide sort of tries to give you historical overview of some of the resources we have available Jim Sells from the University of Virginia has documented in this article that's been done a number of years ago the long-standing effort University of Virginia had with the balance scorecard an effort that actually has recently been refreshed with a new strategy development approach. We also have the audio recording from a fall forum panel from the first cohort and another bimonthly report article that captured a little bit the cohort one and Vivian Lee Steve Heeler Liz Mangel and Donna Tolson captured the cohort one experience in a paper they presented at the 2010 library assessment conference. We did mention earlier in the webcast the first part one of the A and L balance scorecard webcast that's available on the on the A and L YouTube channel I hope many of you that are truly interested in this will will go and watch it and we did mention also earlier the audio that Diane Walker from Notre Dame and Arnold Hirshen from Case West turned their presentations at the 2012 membership meeting and of course we now have today's workshop and I want to thank all of our participants and all of our presenters for their viable insights in the development of the balance scorecard process thank you for attending thank you this concludes today's webcast please thank you for your participation may disconnect your lines this time and have a great day