Problem Solving

User Generated

Uhffnz002

Writing

UAM

Description

The Assignment

Bill Ptacek has asked you to provide him a report with recommendations to help him out with the dilemma laid out at the end of the case. Of course, you will provide alternatives along with your recommendations and an implementation plan, with timeline and budget. You should be very careful of “yin and yang” problems.

Assume the current year is 2010, and that the “plan” is the “The Year 2020 Plan.”

Please make sure this reflects your best effort – think hard about the options, don’t just throw out the first thing that comes into your head. Ask yourself – why is my answer wrong. Think critically and reflect from multiple perspectives. But make sure you approach the final recommendations as if you were walking in Bill’s shoes. Avoid excessive regurgitation of case materials.

Your "briefing" presentation will be to Bill.

The 15 page should exclude 3 page of executive summary+ graphics + tables

Make sure executive summary 3 page of single spaced

You should provide me 3 files Word + Excel + PPT,Thanks.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Instructions: Case Information The attached Case is about Organizational Settings/Policy Area (Public Sector/Government Agency) Academic Skills Needed to do the assignment and solve the case problems are 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Change Management. Decision Making & Analysis. Operations Management. Program Evaluation. Strategic Planning. Leadership and conflict management. The course name is “Problems-Solving in Public Administration” (Master degree) If you do not have a master degree or PHD degree in the above areas, or of you do not have at least enough knowledge or experience please do not raise your bed because I will not accept any work. I have read the case and know everything about it. The Assignment In the case, Bill Ptacek has asked you to provide him a report with recommendations to help him out with the dilemma laid out at the end of the case. Of course, you will provide alternatives along with your recommendations and an implementation plan, with timeline and budget. You should be very careful of “yin and yang” problems. (Read about Ying and Yang strategy). Assume the current year is 2010, and that the “plan” is the “The Year 2020 Plan.” Please sure this reflects your best effort – think hard about the options, don’t just throw out the first thing that comes into your head. Ask yourself – why is my answer wrong. Think critically and reflect from multiple perspectives. But make sure you approach the final recommendations as if you were walking in Bill’s shoes. Avoid excessive regurgitation of case materials. Do not fill the required number of pages of unwanted information, or information not related to the case. Be direct, specific, simple, and professional. Also, use simple English language that can be understood by native speakers and international students. The required number of pages is 20 (Double space) excluding the executive summary, brief background, tables, charts, appendices, and any figures. The 20 is only about the recommendations with implantation plan with timeline and budget. So again, the Executive summary and the Brief are single Spaced, but the report itself excluding executive summary, brief, background, tables, charts, appendices, references, and any figures or anything not about strategies is double spaced. Headings Required 1. Brief to the Boss and Managers in the meeting with Recommendations, Best Recommendations, Actin/Implementation Plan with tasks, Timeline with professional Gantt Chart, Budget for each task and whole budget, Sources of Funding. (5 Pages single space excluding tables, charts, and figures). 2. Executive Summary (tow pages’ single space). 3. Report and that includes; • Background (Based on the case) • Stakeholders • Analysis of the case with decision criteria’s. • Problem Statement and requirements. • Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats, and challenges. • Plan Components (2010-2020) with details & Plan Goal. • Recommended strategies. • Best strategy. • Implementation Plan. • Timeline. • Budget. • Sources of Funding. • Conclusion • Appendix. • References, Citations, Footnotes. Note that Implementation Plan, Timeline, Budget & Sources of Funding will be applied for each recommended solution separately and for the best one as well. Also, you need to explain drawback, or limitation for each one and how to avoid them. Also, you need to explain the Measures of Effectiveness & monitoring and evaluation. Thank you. The State of Yale Gordon College AY 2004-05 for presentation at University of Baltimore, Budget Taskforce October 12, 2004 Not Your Parents’ College of Liberal Arts Introducing YGC YGC: An Integral Part of UB Where Have We Been New Programs YGC: A History of Growth Dean’s Dreams Planning and Budgeting Dean’s Promises Challenges Excessive Reliance on Adjuncts Faculty Support Planning Quality Where Do We Want to Go? Strategic Vision It is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving – Oliver Wendell Holmes Not Your Parents’ College of Liberal Arts Introducing YGC A “Unique” College of Liberal Arts  YGC is not a monolithic organization  Philosophical split about mission – professional vs. liberal arts studies.  Programmatic split:  Graduate (1,107) v. UnderGrad (1,079) enrollments  Professional & pre-professional (75%+) v. traditional liberal arts (25%–). Divisions, Programs, and Centers  Schools/Divisions (6)       School of Communications Design School of Public Affairs (SPA) School of Information Arts and Technologies Division of Applied Behavioral Sciences Division of Criminology, Criminal Justice, & Social Policy (CJ) Division of Legal, Ethical, and Historical Studies  Programs (27)  Doctoral (2)  Masters of Fine Arts (2)  Masters (9)  Liberal Arts focus – only Legal Studies  Undergraduate (14)  Liberal Arts focus (6)  More than 75% of YGC enrollments are in “professional” programs.  Centers (5)      Schaefer Center for Public Policy Center for Negotiations and Conflict Management Center for Community and Technology Services Center for Baltimore Studies Institute for Words and Images  *Hoffberger Center for Professional Ethics* –2– Not Your Parents’ College of Liberal Arts YGC: An Integral Part of UB Teaching  To some extent, “credit hours” reflect demand for instructors, while “weighted credit hours” reflect revenue. UB Total Credit Hours, Academic Year 2003-04 Law 23,409 credits 27.3% YGC 34,598 credits 40.3% MSB 27,800 credits 32.4% Source: USM Faculty Workload Report  In recent years, YGC courses have generated ≈40% of UB’s total credit hours. UB Weighted Total Credit Hours Academic Year 2003-04 YGC 31.7% Law 42.5% Note: Weights based on Fall 2004 tuition`rates: Undergrad = 1.00 Graduate = 1.80 Law = 2.58 Doctoral w eighted as grad. MSB 25.8% Source: USM Faculty Workload Report  In recent years, YGC courses have generated an increasing percentage of UB’s total weighted credit hours. –3– Not Your Parents’ College of Liberal Arts YGC: An Integral Part of UB Research Annual Average of Books and Refereed Articles 3-Year Average for AYE 2002 through AYE 2004 YGC 38 (23.4%) 0.8 / TT Fac Law 60 (36.7%) 1.4 / TT Fac MSB 65 (37.9%) 1.4 / TT Fac Source: USM Faculty Workload Report Ann. Avg. of non-Refereed Articles & Creative Activities 3-Year Average for AYE 2002 through AYE 2004 Law 57.7 (27.1%) 1.4 / TT Fac YGC 112.3 (52.7%) 2.4 / TT Fac MSB 43.0 (20.2%) 0.9 / TT Fac Source: USM Faculty Workload Report  The YGC faculty is productive in terms of scholarship.  The 53% of “Creative Activities” reflects the nature of a number of the disciplines within YGC. –4– Not Your Parents’ College of Liberal Arts YGC: An Integral Part of UB Public Service and Contracts Annual Average of Public Service Hours 3-Year Average for AYE 2002 through AYE 2004 YGC 907 days (35.5%) 19.3 days / TT Fac Law 850 days (33.2%) 20.4 / TT Fac MSB 799 days (31.3%) 16.8 days / TT Fac Source: USM Faculty Workload Report Annual Average of Contracts and Grants (in $1,000s) 3-Year Average for AYE 2002 through AYE 2004 Law $308 (4.3%) YGC $3,707 (52.0%) MSB $3,116 (43.7%) Note: In $1,000s  The YGC faculty generate more than half of UB’s total grant/contract dollars. –5– Where Are We Now? Recently Established Programs Growing and Changing With the Times  Thirteen new (13) programs established since 1998 (enrollment-based credit hours, Fall 2004).  UnderGr: Health Systems Management (1998) – 775  UnderGr: Applied Info. Technology (1999) – 1,206  UnderGr: Forensic Science (2001) – 519  UnderGr: Community Studies and Civic Engagement (2003) – 99  UnderGr: Simulation and Digital Entertainment (2004) – 204  Masters: Negotiations & Conflict Management (1998) – 606  Masters: Human Services Administration (1999) – 494 (joint with Coppin State Univ.)  Masters: Health Systems Management (2002) – 319  Masters: Interaction Design & Info. Arch. (2002) – 156  Masters: MFA in Integrated Design (2003) – 27  Masters: MFA in Creative Writing and Publishing Arts (2003) – 108  Doctorate: Communications Design (1998) – 44  Doctorate: Public Administration (2000) – 183  These recent programs account for more than 30% of Fall 2004 graduate credit hours, and nearly 30% of undergraduate credit hours. Faculty Over Time YGC Faculty HeadCount AYE 2001 through AYE 2004 Faculty Headcount 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 AYE 01 AYE 02 AYE 03 AYE 04 ntt HeadCnt 7 11 10.5 11.5 TT HeadCnt 46 45 50 46 Source: USM Faculty Workload Reports  ntt (contractual) faculty members now constitute 25% of YGC faculty. –6– Where Have We Been? YGC: A History of Growth YGC Credit Hours YGC Undergraduate Credit Hours AYE 2001 through AYE 2004 24,000 Undergrad Credit Hours 20,000 16,000 12,000 8,000 4,000 0 YGC AYE01 AYE02 AYE03 AYE04 22,097.0 22,606.0 22,234.0 22,704.5  YGC had a 2.7% increase in UnderGrad credit hours between AYE 2001 and AYE 2004 (following an 18.3% increase between AYE 1998 and 2001). YGC Graduate Credit Hours AYE 2001 through AYE 2004 12,000 Graduate Credit Hours 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 YGC AYE01 AYE02 AYE03 AYE04 8,228.0 10,861.0 10,741.0 11,893.5  YGC had a 44.5% increase in Graduate credit hours between AYE 2001 and AYE 2004 (following a 4.3% decline between AYE 1998 and 2001). The Yale Gordon College has increased weighted credit hour production by nearly 20% in the last three years. –7– Dean’s Dreams Budget Planning (help me to do my job)  With the rest of UB, the YGC shares responsibility for reducing/controlling expenditures and increasing efficiency to meet declines in State funding.  With the rest of UB, the YGC shares responsibility for increasing revenues.  Management: A budget (and budget process) that affords the Dean sufficient flexibility for College-level decision making, planning, and reallocation to meet conflicting needs and demands.  Predictability: An ability to anticipate out-year budgets, at least under a reasonable set of assumptions. Other Budget Issues  Over time, incremental budgeting inevitably leads to disparities.  Correcting disparities requires an incremental reallocation over time.  The College’s must receive credit for summer tuition revenues, be held accountable for summer costs, and have the flexibility to use a reasonable proportion of excess revenues within the College. Dean’s Promise  The YGC will live within its budget.  The YGC will continue to do our share – but to plan ahead and move forward we must know the “rules” – which behaviors will be rewarded, and how those rewards will be allocated.  We are prepared to be “entrepreneurial” – to take calculated risks – but successful endeavors must yield the anticipated rewards. –8– Challenges Excessive Reliance on Adjuncts  In AYE 2004, approximately 40% of YGC organized class sections were taught by adjunct instructors.  Undergraduate Core Curriculum  In AYE 2004, all 27 sections of Ideas in Writing were taught by adjunct faculty.  In AYE 2004, more than 70% of Ethical Issues and Arts & Ideas sections were taught by adjunct faculty.  The average adjunct instructor remuneration of $2,000/course is not sufficient to attract well-qualified individuals who are willing to teach more than one course. Faculty Expectations  Pending increases in expected teaching workload require careful consideration of other faculty workload expectations.  Minimal support for development.  The AYE 2005 budget includes less than $400 per faculty member for development (travel & research).  This is especially problematic for not-yet-tenured TT faculty members.  No travel/development funds for ntt faculty members, staff, or adjuncts.  Note: the College has generally still managed to provide one course teaching reductions for “not-yet-tenured” TT faculty members.  Lack of “high quality” graduate assistants makes research more difficult.  Deplorable state of graduate assistant stipends.  Also, implications for student “culture” in the classroom. Quality  Increased enrollments have a price.  After the increases experienced by the YGC over the last five years, enrollment management efforts can not treat enrollment increases as if they are “on the margin.”  In the YGC, increasing enrollments can not be dealt with by increasing adjuncts.  See discussion below. –9– Where Do We Want To Go? Strategic Crossroads: The Role of YGC at UB It is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving – Oliver Wendell Holmes Is YGC primarily a revenue generator for the University? Where does quality fit in?  Yes, we need to accomplish both, but…  Simply saying “both” DODGES the question and avoids the hard choices.  The “real” answer emerges from the choices we make as we allocate scarce resources among competing needs.  The solution lies in program and resource DIFFERENTIATION. – 10 – Where Do We Want To Go? Strategic Vision “Program” Differentiation  Quality: ALL programs must meet reasonable instructional standards.  All students deserve value for their investment; this is our ethical responsibility.  As an urban university, our charge is to meet the needs of a diverse student body – we must add value between the time a student enters and he or she leaves.  We must pay serious attention to measurement and assessing program outcomes.  Differentiate programs to meet different needs.  Centers of Excellence (reputation and research)  Instructional programs (quality and growth)  Perhaps, “preparation/developmental” workshops, mentoring, etc. (a different quality emphasis) Resource Differentiation – Students  Create Value: ALL students must be better when they leave than when they came.  Differentiate students: Encourage students to select programs in which they can successfully meet their needs.  Access and opportunity  Evaluate students as part of the admissions process.  Provide guidance and mentoring in program selection and career choice.  Support student development needs: Ensure students have the skills they need to succeed at UB and in life.  Address barriers to admission and graduation.  “Bootstrap” student quality for growth – it is access and opportunity.  “Make lemonade” – also use student evaluation information to identify and structure student development so they may truly garner the benefits of the instructional experience. – 11 – Where Do We Want To Go? Strategic Vision Resource Differentiation – Faculty  Productivity: ALL faculty members must make productive contributions (and be valued for those contributions).  YGC, as a whole, needs to produce in terms of teaching, basic and applied research, and public service.  But, faculty members differ in terms of interests and talents.  Not all faculty members will or should contribute in the same way!  Differentiate faculty: allocate faculty members’ talents wisely.  Good teachers  Productive scholars  National/international reputation  Grants  “Client-valued” public service  Contracts  This differentiation needs to occur at each level.  Different performance mix by –  School/division;  Program within school/division;  Faculty members within program. Resource Differentiation – Faculty  ntt (contractual) instructors have an important role.     Contractual instructors can bring special expertise to the classroom. They could/should teach heavier course loads than TT faculty members. They help to address diversity issues. They afford moderate flexibility for enrollment changes over time.  Adjunct instructors have an important role.      Adjunct instructors can bring “real world” expertise to the classroom. They can reduce instructional costs by approximately 75%. Improve relationships with external organizations. They help to address diversity issues. They afford flexibility for enrollment changes over time. – 12 – Th e Ele c tron i c Ha llwa y ® Case Teaching Resources FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Box 353060 · University of Washington · Seattle WA 98195-3060 www.hallway.org IMPROVING DECISION MAKING AND PATRON SERVICE IN THE KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM (A) Bill Ptacek, director of the King County Library System (KCLS), picked up a copy of “The Year 2000 Plan” and glanced inside at the table of contents. His eyes scanned the headings: “Service and Collection Levels,” “Capital Projects,” “Staffing Model”, and “Revenue and Expenditures.” Since becoming the library system's director three years ago, Ptacek and his senior management team had worked long and tedious hours on all these crucial components to develop a long-range plan to guide the library system through the year 2000. The ultimate goal of the plan seemed clear: to ensure that the library system was structured so that resources were distributed equitably and were coordinated to maximize the value to the community of the library's offerings. Inherent in this goal was a major building program to address the county's 20% projected population growth and a shift in collection development targeted toward providing a more in-depth and sophisticated level of materials and services. Underlying all of these efforts was a renewed emphasis on quality service to patrons. If only there was a formal way to address the organizational culture of the library system, Ptacek thought to himself. For the past three years, he had been hearing numerous complaints from personnel throughout the library system, from line staff in the 38 community libraries to senior management at the library's headquarters, called the Service Center. Branch personnel argued that management decisions made at the Service Center often had a negative impact on line staff and patrons, while the senior management team, all quartered at the Service Center, seemed to be suffering from interdepartmental competition and complained of being overworked. Typical of the issues, one branch librarian complained that it took over a year to authorize repair to a microfiche reader. New programs and policies were initiated by the administration that branch employees found difficult to implement or which impeded service. For example, the wait list and reserve system, developed at the Service Center, was so complicated that staff were embarrassed to explain it to their patrons. The recordkeeping system was considered onerous, and in an understaffed system, any extra work was unwelcome. At the same time, “The Year 2000 Plan” called for a renewed emphasis This case study was made possible through the generous contributions of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation as part of their support for this national curriculum development project. The case was prepared by Krista Chell while a candidate for a Master’s Degree in Public Administration and was supervised by Jon Brock, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for educational purposes per the Member’s Agreement (www.hallway.org). Copyright 1996 The Electronic Hallway Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) on patron service, through promotion of the system's many services and by providing individual attention to patrons. Ptacek knew that certain changes in the management practices and culture of the library system needed to be implemented to achieve successful completion of the goals outlined in “The Year 2000 Plan.” As its main advocate, he was determined not to let internal disharmony within the library system undermine the traditions of success and excellent service or all the hard work that had been poured into the long-range plan by the senior staff and himself. A relative newcomer to an organization known for its high proportion of long-time employees (the average term of employment was 15 years), Ptacek questioned how he should go about making truly effective and acceptable changes. The KCLS Mission Designing a long-range plan had been Ptacek's main priority when he first came on the job. His mandate from the Library Board was to build upon an initial study that had been conducted a year before his arrival, describing the county's projected population growth and demographic diversification. Soon after the initial study was released, voters in the library district of King County had approved a bond measure, providing $67 million for an ambitious building program. The expansion project, which would add six new libraries, twelve replacement libraries, two expansions and sixteen renovations, was targeted at underserved and unserved parts of King County that had seen rapid population growth in the past ten years. The bond campaign was the last major project of the previous director, Herbert Mutschler, who had served as the library system's director for 26 years. Mutschler retired from his position soon after the bond was passed, leaving its implementation to the incoming director. Ptacek came to the King County Library System, having just served as the director of the Louisville Free Public Library in Kentucky. His experience in public library management was extensive, and he was a librarian by trade. In addition to Louisville, he had worked as the director of a library system in Idaho and had served as a regional director in the Chicago Public Library System. Ptacek had very specific ideas to update KCLS's mission, a task that was supported in full by the library system's five-member Board. He envisioned the library system becoming the county's main source for reference information and wanted to expand the types of services offered by the library system to meet the growing needs of a diverse urban and rural community. Ptacek presented the first edition of “The Year 2000 Plan” only six months after his arrival as director. The emphasis on expanded reference services to meet informational, educational and cultural needs of users was clear. The expansion of community-based services geared toward children, life-long learning, career development and literacy was impressive. It signaled an obvious departure from simply maintaining the traditional offerings of popular and recreational literature and materials. 2 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) Additionally, the long-range plan clearly set out a framework of priorities for the different sizes of libraries in the system. The five levels of small, medium, large, resource and regional libraries were determined by the square footage of the facility, collection size, staff size and staffing classifications, services, number of open days and open hours. At the small and medium-sized libraries, the collections would be composed primarily of materials with introductory and basic information. At the large and resource libraries there would be more specialized works, such as business and biographical collections, in addition to introductory information. The collections at the regional libraries would include more technical information, particularly in some subject areas, as well as general and introductory information. Regional libraries would additionally serve as a resource for other libraries in the region and would provide in-depth reference and user services, both in-house and by telephone. In short, “The Year 2000 Plan” reflected what a modern library system would have to become to serve the diverse and growing population of the region. Three years into Ptacek's tenure, the expansion program was progressing rapidly. Two of the four regional libraries and numerous modernization projects had been completed and six other building projects were well under way. The library system had also substantially enhanced its on-line reference services and had become an example to other public libraries through its federal documents depository collection. It had additionally become the fifth largest library system in circulation in the United States, circulating nearly onemillion items every month throughout its numerous branches. Bill Ptacek felt good about the accomplishments of his short tenure. Confident that the long-range plan was well on its way to a successful implementation, Ptacek turned his attention to the internal operations of the library system. For three years, he had been hearing from management and branch staff about problems with the way the library system did business internally. After several years of building a positive rapport with staff in the library system, Ptacek thought it was finally an appropriate time to review the current status of the library's internal operations and organization. He wondered if and where changes might be made. The Organizational Hierarchy The King County Library System enjoyed a reputation as a quality public library. It had been acknowledged by the federal government as a model for other libraries in meeting the federal needs of the community and was praised as an innovative library system for its extensive mailing services, a traveling library and a toll-free Answer Line providing up-tothe-minute information on a wide range of topics. It was additionally recognized as an organization with a high percentage of professionally trained staff. All librarians were required to have a Master's degree in Library and Information Science or proper Washington State certification as a Librarian. KCLS had access to one of the West Coast's four graduate programs in Library and Information Science at the University of Washington in Seattle, and was able to draw from a skilled pool of applicants when 3 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) staffing the system's 38 branches. The level of dedication, excellence and expertise of the library system staff was obvious. Like most public library systems in the United States, the King County Library System had been operating under a traditional hierarchical authority structure. The Library Board provided over-arching guidance to the system, hopefully reflecting community voters and their needs, while the director supervised the daily management of the library system and worked closely with the Board in establishing long-range goals for the library and implementing long-term priorities. The assistant director was responsible for management of the Public Services Department. All 38 branches of the library system fell under the jurisdiction of the Public Services Department, with three area administrators serving as intermediaries between branches and departmental managers. Area administrators were responsible for overseeing branch budget preparation and operational management for eleven to fourteen libraries each. Area administrators did not sit on the senior management team, but rather had periodic meetings with the assistant director to be briefed on senior management team directives. In addition to maintaining the link between branches and the Service Center, Public Services was responsible for several programs that were common to most branches, including Children's Services, Literacy/Young Adult Services, the Traveling Library Center, Information Systems and Reference. The manager of each of these programs reported to the assistant director/ deputy librarian for Public Services. The director's Administrative Council, or DAC as the senior management team was called, was a group started by Bill Ptacek's predecessor decades ago. The senior management team was an extremely competent and highly task-oriented group of individuals, many of whom had been with the library system for over ten years. Ptacek had maintained the membership of DAC as it had been under Herbert Mutschler and had made very few changes to the management structure of the library system when he first arrived. DAC was the top level of management, composed of the director, assistant director and the six Managers/deputy librarians of: Collection Development, Technical Services, Facilities Development, Human Resources, Administrative Services and Community Relations (see Attachment 1). Under several of the departmental managers were division managers with more narrowed focuses. For instance, under Collection Development, there was a director of media services, who was responsible for video and film services and collections. These eight individuals made up the only formal decision making body in the library system, and were responsible for providing the director with guidance on long-term and strategic policy issues, as well as keeping one another updated on departmental activities for purposes of coordination. Although DAC was the only body with formal decision making capabilities, there were several other committees, standing and ad hoc, throughout the library system that provided advisory assistance to the director and DAC on a variety of topics, i.e. Foreign 4 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) Language, Literacy, New Technology, etc. Additionally, there was a monthly meeting of the 38 managing librarians and representatives of the Public Services Department. Usually held at the Service Center, these Public Services Meetings, or Head's Meetings, as they were commonly referred to by the librarians, were used to inform managing librarians of policies and directives coming out of the Service Center, as well as give librarians the chance to voice concerns. Meetings tended to be dominated by discussions of service delivery problems in the branches. The facilitator of the Public Services Meeting, Assistant Director Barbara Tolliver, often felt overwhelmed with the number of service delivery issues raised and thought that the forum was too large to deal with issues effectively. Sometimes, the issues raised were unique to a particular branch and thus were inappropriate for the whole group to discuss. Branch managers, on the other hand, felt the issues that they raised during these meetings were important from a line staff and patron point-of-view, and they were discouraged when they were told that their problems would be raised with DAC. They wanted more immediate resolution. In the past, they had voiced problems which had supposedly gone to DAC for resolution, and then they never heard about the issue again. “It was like a great black hole,” said one discouraged branch manager. “You never knew if the issue you had placed on the table at the Head's Meetings would be resolved eventually by DAC or slip through the cracks.” One librarian recounted how she had tried unsuccessfully for a year to bring an innovative idea for a new problem-solving forum for mid-level managers in the branches to the attention of DAC. She had initially introduced the idea of a “Lead Library Assistants Meeting” to her branch manager, who was excited about the plan and passed it on the Area Administrator, who was less enthusiastic but agreed to bring it to the attention of Public Services and DAC. The branch manager additionally introduced the idea at several Public Services Meetings, where he was told the issue was “under consideration.” It was over a year before the Lead Library Assistants Meeting received authorization from DAC to have their first meeting. All managers and area supervisors had offices that were located at the library headquarters, called the Service Center, in downtown Seattle. However, area administrators regularly traveled to branch sites to meet with branch personnel. The Service Center additionally housed the staffs of the seven departments. With over 750 employees located in 38 branches throughout the county and the Service Center, Bill Ptacek was not surprised that so many problems existed in the internal operation of the library system. The following examples demonstrated the kinds of institutional barriers that kept the library system from being as efficient and effective as it could be. 5 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) The Video Loan Period Debacle One branch manager had recounted one of DAC's more illustrious decisions - a decision which was, in the branch manager's words, “a patron-service nightmare.” It began when branch personnel received a written communication from DAC that a new, video, loanperiod policy would be implemented within a matter of days. Under the original system, patrons could borrow fiction videos for two days and could not submit requests for other videos in the system. They were limited to the video selection in the particular branch library. Under the new policy, the loan period increased from two to fourteen days. Not only could patrons keep the videos longer, but the library would now allow a patron to place holds on videos system-wide and would then mail the videos to the patron's home address, just as they did with books. The policy had been conceived by the Collections Development Department at the Service Center and approved by DAC to provide better service to patrons by allowing them access to all videos in the library system, thus implementing an important component of the KCLS mission to provide broader access of all materials to all patrons. Based on recommendations from the director of media services and the video policy committee, DAC had agreed to implement the new loan period policy as a six-month experiment. Despite the good intentions, the negative reactions by patrons were immediate. Since there was no limit on the number of videos that patrons could borrow, videos were being checked out of the library sometimes up to ten at a time to a patron. As a result, the video shelves throughout the system were constantly bare. And although patrons seemed to like the new mailing service, the videos that they now could request throughout the system had an additional processing and shipping time of one to three days on top of the loan period. Patrons argued that they didn't need two weeks to watch their videos, and they protested that the longer borrowing time encouraged people to hoard large numbers of videos. Branch staff were also unhappy with the new policy. They perceived DAC as having gone behind their backs in making a decision which would have a drastic impact on their job duties. The time branch staff spent on mailing items to patrons increased noticeably. “Our mailing volume increased by nearly 25%,” said one branch manager. “I had to commit more of my staff's time to processing videos for postal service in the mailing room. That meant less time out in the library answering questions and helping patrons with material searches.” The book drops were also continually clogged, as patrons returned large volumes of videos after weekend video marathons. An even more disagreeable task for branch personnel was explaining a policy they didn't agree with to irate patrons who either had to choose from a meager selection of videos remaining on the shelf or place a request for the video they wanted. Some patrons didn't like the reserve function because it could take fourteen days to receive the video in the mail. 6 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) The policy had been implemented so rapidly that little consideration had been given to user information and publicity. No brochures had been written or flyers posted to explain the details of or rationale behind the policy, nor had the bookmarks and video labels describing the old video loan policy been changed. “If DAC would have had the foresight to ask us how we could alert our patrons to the change, we could have posted the pending policy change in the library. Instead, we wasted a lot of time explaining the new policy to each patron who came to the circulation desk wanting to know why there was such a pitiful selection of videos,” lamented one branch manager. Seeing how negatively the policy impacted both staff and patrons, one senior manager admitted that while the theory behind the extended loan period was a good one, the implementation lacked finesse. “We thought we were doing the library patrons a service by extending the loan period,” she stated, “but it became obvious very quickly that we hadn't thought through the implementation strategy carefully enough.” During the six month experimental period, an extensive survey of patrons was conducted with regard to the new video loan policy. The policy was changed after an assessment of the patron comments and a presentation of the results to the Library Board by the Director of Media Services. DAC then decided to cut back the loan period from fourteen to ten days. The Shift to Central Selection The change to central purchasing of books was another major policy shift about which generated a great deal of negative feedback. The policy change angered some branch personnel, particularly the branch managers, because it did away with a traditional librarian function. Seeking to implement one of the prime goals of the new library mission  a more indepth and sophisticated level of collections  Bill Ptacek and the Deputy Librarian of the Collections Development Department had talked about moving the book-buying capability to the Service Center, rather than leaving that responsibility to each branch manager. Several months before the final decision, DAC had commissioned a consultant to do an assessment of the current book-selection procedure to determine whether any improvements could be made to the library system's method of collection development. After visiting numerous branches and meeting with several branch librarians to discuss their method of book selection, the consultant recommended to DAC and the Library Board that the library system switch to centralized book selection and purchase. This new policy, he asserted, would be in keeping with the “systems approach” to service delivery, which aimed at providing a wide range of diverse materials to all patrons county-wide. Based on the consultant recommendation, DAC approved the new central selection policy. The idea behind the policy seemed to be sound from a patron stand-point. The library system treated books as belonging to the collective system, and thus, they were mobile items, available to any patron anywhere in the library's service area. By shifting to central 7 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) selection, the Collection Development Department could control the number and kind of books the library system was purchasing. This would help to ensure a greater diversity of available material and would help to cut down on duplicate purchases of the same item. But, the new central selection policy was poorly received by the branch personnel. It eliminated the much-enjoyed librarian task of selecting and ordering books, not only for the branch manager but for the reference and children's librarians as well. Librarians resented that one of their favorite responsibilities had been brought within the Service Center. “It was the task I loved the most in my role as a branch manager,” said one librarian. “Using my skills in selecting books to share with the public was the primary reason I went to school to become a librarian.” Another librarian echoed the lament of many under this policy that her discretionary book buying budget was cut by 85%, leaving her only enough money to buy from six to ten books per year. She argued that the Service Center was taking away her ability to buy books unique to the particular needs of the community. It also angered her that branch librarians had not been privy to the decision to move to central selection until it was announced in the monthly meeting of branch managers. “Talk about a shocker,” she stated. “Wouldn't you think that we would have been included in discussions of a policy change that ultimately would change our job description?” The perception that branch librarian opinions had purposely not been sought because DAC knew the policy would be unpopular grew, thus exacerbating an already tense relationship between branch personnel and the Service Center. The Technology Revolution In 1982, KCLS became one of the first public library systems to automate its circulation system. Eight years later, the library system selected a new and more efficient automated circulation system and added an on-line catalog to allow patrons access to the collections through computer. Staff appreciated the move toward greater efficiency and patrons were impressed that they could look up and put a hold on materials through computers so fast and so easily. Sometimes, however, changes would be made to the system with little or no advance notice to the branch personnel and no requests for input from the line-staff who would be responsible for training the public in on-line catalog use. In one instance, the Public Access (PAC) Terminals that were used by patrons to look up and reserve materials had been upgraded overnight by the Data Processing Division at the Service Center with no forewarning to the branch personnel. When branch personnel came to work the next morning, they were unaware that patrons would need to go through another step to access the magazine search function on the PAC terminals. A reference librarian from the Bellevue Library was working that morning, and he recounted how frustrating it was to assist patrons with a process that had changed without his knowledge: 8 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) I literally showed up in the morning with no awareness that the method for executing the magazine search had been altered. It was embarrassing when patrons, who were following the directions I had given them to access this information, couldn't bring the magazine search up on the screen. And it wasn't as if the extra step made things any more difficult, really. As soon as I figured it out, there was no problem. It would've been nice, however, to have known in advance that the program was going to be changed. I would have been able to serve the patrons better. Also typical of complaints with regard to technology was the lack of adequate staff training when new software was introduced to the computer system. When the updated on-line catalog was introduced, staff received very little training, typically one day. Another problem was the length of time between training classes and the implementation of the new on-line catalog in the library branch. In one instance, a group of librarians received their day of training at the Service Center over a month before the system was introduced to their library. Many of the librarians had forgotten their training and wished that they had been trained in the library facility as the PAC terminals came on-line or had taken a refresher course closer to the time of implementation. Discontent Grows Throughout the KCLS Branches The branch personnel had been complaining about these kinds of problems among themselves and to their area supervisors for several years, long before Bill Ptacek became Director. There was a clear history of Service Center/branch library tension that resulted from what some branch personnel perceived as “thoughtless neglect” on the part of the Service Center. Additionally, the pace of change under Ptacek and the new focus of “The Year 2000 Plan” had added to the potential for conflict. Branch personnel were frustrated with the lack of line-level input on questions of service operation and delivery. The video loan period and PAC terminal examples signaled to them that the Service Center did not think through all the possible negative implications on staff or patrons when changing a policy or implementing new technology. The central selection example exemplified the commonly-held belief among branch personnel that the Service Center did not care to include branch personnel because they felt field staff were incapable of making decisions with system-wide impact. One branch manager put the problem in this context: The people downtown [at the Service Center] continually make decisions which impact our day-to-day operations and contact with the patrons. Most of the time, those decisions are made without our input, or in a way that makes it difficult to give the best service possible to our patrons. It seems to me that the Service Center's main responsibility is to support the branches. They should act as if we, the branches, are their customers. Currently, that's not how the library system operates. 9 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) The Director had also heard separately from a number of the children's and reference librarians who asked for his assistance in solving problems they thought were unique to their branches. Ptacek knew that there were a number of reference and children's librarians within the library system who would be able to solve the issues if only they were asked for help. The children's librarians were interested in capturing the attention of children who spoke English as a Second Language as well as receiving assistance and involvement from their parents. Among other things, the reference librarians were frustrated with peak-hour overloads that came with the new circulation and inventory systems. In addition to complaints from the branch librarians, there were division managers who worked under the DAC-level managers to coordinate activities throughout the library system. For example, a new Children's Program Coordinator and Literacy Coordinator had been recruited to direct the activities of these programs in the branches. In their positions, they reported difficulty working with the branch librarians who had grown accustomed to programming their own branch's children and literacy projects. These new coordinators had a hard time implementing new initiatives or ideas they thought would benefit the system. While the coordinators had been given responsibility for system-wide initiatives, they had no actual supervisory roles with the branch personnel, and therefore, it was often difficult to carry out their duties. Another criticism Ptacek heard was the lack of influence branch managers had in getting things done, like repairing the microfiche reader or having building repairs and modifications done in less than 18 months. Although several branch personnel had been involved in the building committee, many branch staff complained that they wanted more to say about the buildings. For instance, there was no room for the “Friends of the Library” volunteers to work or store their belongings in the two newest branch libraries, even though volunteers were becoming an increasingly important part of the system's workforce. The design of the circulation desk made it difficult to process more than two patrons at a time in one of the busiest urban libraries. The branch managers were also frustrated by decisions made about the A/V collections and inventory policies that left long waiting lists for some of the most popular new materials. In general, the branch librarians complained that many administrative policies hurt patron relations, delayed satisfaction and created the need for extensive explanations or apologies. DAC and Organizational Decision-Making Bill Ptacek had gradually become accustomed to the Monday morning DAC meetings. They had been instituted by Ptacek's predecessor as the only formal decision making forum in the library system. The meetings, however, were run rather informally with items being added “on-the-spot” to the brief agendas developed by the Director (see Attachment 2). Discussions at these meetings ranged from budget decisions and building 10 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) projects to circulation policies and computer purchases. Ptacek had been feeling for some time that DAC was becoming a dumping ground for all sorts of unresolved issues in the library system. People were afraid to make a change without DAC approval. There was a perception among mid-level staff in the Service Center and branch staff that DAC was too controlling and DAC members were overly protective of their “turf.” Incidences of miscommunication and misconceptions between staff in the branches and staff in the Service Center were becoming more and more common. Tension among DAC members was also evident during the meetings and was widely felt throughout the staff. A recent meeting had been typically illustrative of this problem. This is ridiculous,” complained an exasperated DAC member. “We've been here for over an hour without reaching consensus on this issue, and we have four more items on the agenda to cover. Let's table the decision on the telephone system and computer purchase until the next meeting and give people an opportunity to think it over during the week. There are more pressing issues to discuss. “I agree,” declared the deputy librarian for the Technical Services Department. “I have two items I'd like to discuss. First, I just got a memo from Shipping and Receiving that the mailing machine has been tampered with again. We need to do something about this! Also, this past week, one of the area administrators brought it to my attention that some of the librarians were complaining in the Head's Meeting about the inconsistency of procedures among the branches for handling odd and over-sized materials. The branch librarians would like a designation for odd and oversized materials placed in the on-line catalog reference. Patrons get confused when they look up a book on the PAC terminal and then can't find it in the regular stacks because its too large to fit on the shelf. They don't realize there's a special place for over-sized books. I told the area administrator I would bring it up to DAC.” “There's also that problem with book sorting we've been asked to address,” said the deputy librarian of public services. “Some of the branch personnel have asked me if Technical Services could place the ownership labels on the outside of the book rather than the inside. When they're sorting books, they have to open each book cover to find the name of the originating library. They think if Technical Services puts the name on the front cover, it will cut back on sorting time and allow them more direct contact with the patrons. I think anything that gets them out of the mailroom faster would be a real benefit from the patron stand-point.” “That sounds like a reasonable request,” said the human resources manager. “Would it really be that difficult to arrange?” 11 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) “Are you kidding?” stated the deputy librarian for technical services. “That will add an entirely new step for my staff in the processing of all new materials. It's already a timeconsuming task as it is.” The DAC meeting continued in this manner for another forty minutes. DAC members were used to bringing issues to the table informally during the meeting. At the end of this particular meeting, they decided that the amount of additional time it would take the technical service staff during its processing of newly purchased books to designate the originating library would outweigh the benefit of saved time for branch personnel. Like the phone/computer purchasing item, the vandalism and over-sized designation issues were tabled until the next meeting. “Certainly these meetings could be spent more productively,” thought Ptacek as he walked out of the meeting room and reached in his pocket for his bottle of Excedrin. Dissatisfaction Grows within the Ranks of DAC Tensions among the departments and their managers had become more common over the past few years. Several DAC members spoke candidly about the problems they saw with the senior management team and the relationship among the departments in the Service Center. “It's not surprising that there's distrust and a lack of communication among managers. Outside DAC meetings, we rarely work together,” said one DAC member. “There's been no attempt at team building, and with eight managers with widely varying management styles, we're bound to step on each other's toes.” One member stated, “It's hard to get excited about making a good video-loan policy, for example. What do I know about media services? My expertise is in a completely different area.” “We have a hard time finding common ground,” asserted another DAC member. “We tackle such a myriad of different issues. Usually, we can make decisions together when we have little to no stake in the outcome. But when major resources are at stake, we retreat to our own corners, and then communication among DAC members virtually ceases.” The Director's Dilemma Bill Ptacek wanted to act soon to change these aspects of the current culture of the library system. When he had become Director, his mandate from the Board had been clear  to make the development of the long-range plan his number one priority. Thus, he had made a conscious decision not to act at that time to alter the current structure of the senior management team or make extensive changes in the way decisions were made or 12 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) communicated. The ultimate goal of “The Year 2000 Plan” to provide the highest caliber of service to patrons dictated, however, that a change occur in the way that staff in the branches and staff at the Service Center interacted with one another. He not only had to deal with branch personnel who felt “unempowered,” but he had to alleviate the tension and difficulties surrounding DAC. The timing was right to act decisively. What would he do to ensure these dual components were adequately addressed? 13 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) Attachment 1 - Organizational Chart 14 Improving Decision Making and Patron Service in the King County Library System (A) Attachment 2 - DAC Agenda Examples DAC AGENDA April 6, 1992 10:00 a.m. 1. KCLS Budgeted Expenditures 2. Tax Night Issues 3. Plan for Community Studies 4. Organization of Public Services 5. Reference & The Answer Line Scheduling during carpet installation DAC AGENDA April 27, 1992 9:15 a.m. 1. Limiting Holds 2. Gale Group Project 3. Joint Use Study 4. Postage Expenditures Update 5. A review of presentations for the Foundation meeting 15
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Thank you so much 🙏 🙏

Running head: CASE STUDY ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING.

Case Study about Organizational Setting
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Date:

CASE STUDY ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING

2

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Analysis of the Case with Decision Criteria’s .............................................................................. 10
Problem Statement and Requirements .......................................................................................... 11
SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 12
King County Library System’s Strengths ................................................................................. 13
Weaknesses of the KCLS .......................................................................................................... 14
Opportunities ............................................................................................................................. 14
Threats ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Plan Components with Details and Plan Goals............................................................................. 16
Recommended Strategies .............................................................................................................. 17
The Best Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 19
Implementation Plan for the strategies ......................................................................................... 19
Timeline ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Sources of Funding ....................................................................................................................... 22
Budget ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 23
References ..................................................................................................................................... 24

CASE STUDY ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING

3

Case Study about Organizational Setting
Executive Summary
King County Library Systems (KCLS) is a system of libraries with a total of 38 branches
in the United States. KCLS is among the largest public library systems located in the United
States. The King County Library Systems has been operating under a traditional organizational
structure for years. However, this kind of structure hindered the library systems from
maximizing their full potential. Also, this structure resulted in a lack of harmony and
collaboration in the library systems.
Although the library systems were performing well despite the fact that their
organizational structure hindered them from maximizing their full potential, the new director,
Bill Ptacek, feels that this library is not where it should be. As the new director of the library
systems, he feels that certain changes should be made in the culture of the library system as well
as in the management practices. This case, therefore, is about the King County Library Systems.
Specifically, the case study explores some of the changes that the new director wished to make in
the organizational structure and the management practices as well as the challenges he faces as
he attempts to implement a plan that had been developed a few years ago.
A few years after he is selected, Ptacek attempts to implement the long-range plan so as
to meet the increasing demand of the population, which had been projected to increase by 20%.
His main aim was to change the structure of the library systems as well as how it was being
managed. However, he came across various challenges as he attempted to implement this longrange plan. In fact, he is faced with a dilemma on the dual components of “The Year 2000 Plan.”
For the library system to meet the rising demands of the community population, it was important
for its mission to be changed. His opinions on how the mission should be were supported by all
the board members of the library. The kind of library system that Ptacek wished-for is one that
acts as the county's primary source for reference information and one that would meet the diverse
needs of all those living in the community.
Another area that Ptacek wanted to change is the organizational hierarchy. Initially,
KCLS operated under a traditional hierarchical structure. Under this structure, an average
employment term was 15 years. However, Ptacek felt that was too much and that changing that
culture would help the library to meet some of the goals of the long-range plan. Although Ptacek
is convinced that it is vital to make these changes, he is faced with a dilemma in which he is not
sure of how to go about these changes. Other crucial areas presented in the case are the issue of
the technology revolution, the change to the central selection, and DAC and organizational
decision making. Although his opinions concerning how the process of decision making can be
improved are welcome, Ptacek is unsure of the best time to begin making these changes. From
the case, the employees are disunited as some people feel that their contributions to the library
systems are not being appreciated, especially when it comes to the process of making an
important decision. Disharmony is one major challenge that the new director, Bill Ptacek, faces
as he attempts to make these changes.
The stakeholders of the King County Library Systems include the director's
Administrative Council (DAC), employees and the community. The most important stakeholders
include the director, Bill Ptacek, and the assistant director. Other important stakeholders are the
library assistant manager and the director administrative council. The federal government is also
a stakeholder in KCFL.

CASE STUDY ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING

4

The library systems’ SWOT analysis presents some of the vital aspects in terms of
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that KCLS is facing. Some of its strengths
include having a very strong presence in the U.S. education sector as the most innovative and
high-quality public library, having a superior brand image that enables it to be more effective
than its competitors in the education sector, and having highly educated, motivated and
competent professionals. Another strength is that it has multiple branches. On the other hand, its
weaknesses include a lack of cohesion among the staff. Also, KCFL lacks a digital hierarchical
authority structure. Failure to centralize its selection is yet another weakness of the library
systems. The main opportunity for KCLS is that of global expansion because the library systems
have focused more on the U.S. market.
Other opportunities for KCFL include improving the ability of learners as well as other
people who would like to access quality reference information, increasing acceptance of the need
for lifelong learning, and advocating for digital privacy. Also, the library systems have a chance
to champion digital literacy. The threats that King County Library faces include aggressive
competition. Additionally, global expansion may not be easy because already existing global
players narrow the KCLS bottom line. The DAC is a team composed of the director, the assistant
director, and the other six managers managing the various important department of the King
County Library System. The DAC keeps the King County Library System well-coordinated by
keeping the management updated on various activities taken by every department of the library.
Branch managers managing the 38 branches countywide are also important stakeholders of the
King County Library System.
The problem of the King County Library System is that implementation of the plan
decisions meant to improve the overall performance of the library services, which was already
formulated was a big challenge because of poor communication between those in management
and employees.
King County Library System had various plans in place to take the library service
delivery to the next level. One major component of the plan was the building and expansion
program. Another component of the plan was ensuring that the resources of the library were
distributed equitably to maximize the library systems offered to the community. To ensure that
the resources of the library were equitably distributed, the management planned to shift to central
selection. Revolutionizing the King County Library System technology usage is yet another
important component of the plan. The library systems adopted the use of technology to improve
the efficiency of service delivery at the libraries. For instance, the library systems installed the
Public Access (PAC) terminals, which was a technological addition that allowed the library
patrons to look up and reserve materials conveniently.
An additional component of the plan was increasing the efficiency of service delivery at
the King County Library System. In order to increase the efficiency of service delivery, the
library systems have put in place better communication and management principles that ensure
that the branches communicate effectively with the management to improve the coordination of
the branches and their services. Improved management principles also ensure that the workforce
of the library systems is well treated and their interests covered to minimize employee
dissatisfaction.
Given that the new director envisioned a public library that would meet the rising demand
of the population, it would be important that the decision-making process is improved. Thus,
some of the strategies that I recommend include the introduction of a new communication
platform that enables employees to be involved in the decision-making process.

CASE STUDY ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING

5

I would also recommend the library systems to provide their employees with relevant
training and education. Although the library systems introduced a new technology, public access,
they never trained and educated the staff on how best they can use this technology. In order to
limit some of the challenges that KCLS is now facing, the employees sh...


Anonymous
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags