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