Shahla Bahavar is Reference Coordinator at USC Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Judith A. Truelson is Outreach Coordinator at USC Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Submitted for review October 19, 2006; accepted for publication December 5, 2006.

In 2003, realignment of library services brought about formation of interdisciplinary teams and the coordination of Uni-versity of Southern California (USC) libraries’ core services. This article explores how the reference coordinators have used the “Preferred Futuring” planning process as a foundation for successful planning for reference services in this environment. A brief profile of reference services at USC is followed by an overview of the function and operation of Preferred Futuring and its application at USC. The article concludes with a summary of lessons learned in hosting preferred futuring workshops and with a checklist of planning and preparatory steps for conducting a Preferred Futuring workshop.

In July 2003, the University of Southern California (USC) Library Resources and Services created a discipline-based team structure to accommodate USC’s decentralized library system. Five core teams and interdisciplinary centers were identified: Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, Science and Engineering, Undergraduate Learning, and Manuscripts, Archives, Rare Books and Languages (MARBL) Teams. Instruction coordinators, reference coordinators, and collection development coordinators were appointed to harmonize practice for core library services among interdisciplinary teams and to establish common service goals.

The primary purpose of this article is to explore how the two reference coordinators used the “Preferred Futuring” process as a foundation for successful planning for reference services in a team-based environment. Using feedback from Preferred Futuring workshops, reference coordinators were able to map out a strategic plan for achievement of the desired reference services’ future through participation and input from the team members and other reference service providers.
The article begins by profiling the development of reference service at USC, which is followed by a description of Preferred Futuring’s functions and operations. The article concludes by noting the accomplishments of the team-based planning process and identifying lessons learned from the case study. A checklist of planning and preparatory steps for conducting a Preferred Futuring workshop (figure 3) is also included.

Review of the Literature on Strategic Planning in Libraries

Strategic planning has quite a track record in the literature of business as well as in library and information science. Two books on library management and planning provide useful overviews on this planning model. Matthews’ book, Strategic Planning and Management for Library Managers (2005), guides library managers towards a greater understanding of the role and attendant responsibilities of strategic planning while Hayes’ book, Models for Library Management, Decision-Making, and Planning (2001), places strategic planning in the arena of social, ethical, and moral objective formulas or quantitative methods.¹

The literature on team-based management in libraries is less extensive although the journal Library Administration & Management has regularly published articles on this topic since 1993.² The more extensive work on the subject of team-based management in business is Fogg’s 1994 book which linked team-based management and strategic planning.³
During recent times of turbulent organizational change, library managers have increasingly focused on the relationships between the academic library and its environment and stakeholders. This recognition has led to the use of environmental scans of the community, the campus, and the faculty and students as part of the planning process. Strategic planning also allows the library organization to assess internal strengths and weaknesses in relation to its external environment. By including these dimensions in planning, leaders are better able to create a vision of where the library will go and how to get there.⁴

Although the focus on vision and environment may seem to be at odds with the rational and objective process of strategic planning, there are planning methods that permit visioning to describe how the organization plans to achieve its mission. This is achieved by first creating a preferred vision, then linking this vision to the action-oriented strategic planning process. The Change Handbook, edited by Holman and Devane, identifies a number of such planning techniques that have both affective and rational components.⁵

Preferred Futuring is one of these proven methods for organizational change. This process adheres to general planning principles which recognize the need to gain commitment of staff by admitting them to the process. Any of a number of methods for producing organizational change can be effectively used, but the Preferred Futuring process introduced by Ronald Lippitt and adapted by Richard Dougherty and Carol Hughes has generated more excitement and commitment among USC reference providers than any of these other techniques.⁶ The concept of designing a Preferred Future instead of merely accepting the future that could be predicted based on existing circumstances has been compelling for USC reference faculty and staff.

This case study of team-based strategic reference planning with Preferred Futuring at USC contributes to a developing literature on team-based management and planning through a visioning process such as Preferred Futuring.⁷

This quarter, Michael Stephens of the popular Tame the Web blog offers advice on dodging “technolust” and how to recognize and deal with “technodivorce.” It isn’t all avoidance, though, as he provides ten positive steps for your library’s technology planning. Michael has a pedigree in technology planning as the former Special Projects Librarian at Saint Joseph County (Ind.) Public Library. He now teaches in the LIS program at Dominican University and recently authored two Technology Reports on Web 2.0 for the American Library Association. If you’ve heard Michael speak, you will recognize his straight-from-the-hip style. –Editor

Back in 2004 when I started writing and speaking about technology planning, I urged librarians to be mindful of letting a desire for flashy, sexy technology outweigh conscious, carefully planned implementations. Over the years, I’ve returned to the topic of wise planning and “technolust” on my blog and in various publications. Simply, technolust is “an irrational love for new technology combined with unrealistic expectations for the solutions it brings.”¹

While the emerging technologies of 2004 seem quaint when seen through the lens of 2008, the issue of technolust remains. Call it a 2.0 world, the age of social networking, or whatever you’d like, but now more than ever librarians are finding themselves in a position to make decisions about new and emerging tech—when everything is in beta version and “nimble organizations” are the words of the day.

A fact: new technologies will not save your library. New tech cannot be the center of your mission as an institution. I’m still taken aback when I hear of libraries spending money for technologies without careful planning, an environmental scan of the current landscape, and a complete road map for training, roll out, buy in, and evaluation. When the latest technology hits, are you keen to add it to your library, boosting the coolness factor? For example, buying every librarian on your staff an iPhone as a way to improve reference services is probably not going to be a wise solution. You may have some happy librarians, but that type of technolust does not well serve the organization.
I believe these days we’re dealing with a lot more than just lust. Consider the following other states, if you will:

Technostress: New tools and Web sites come at us daily, easily creating a feeling of unease or anxiety about how much technology we can take on or even understand. How do we keep up? How do we stay in the know, when it seems that those cutting-edge libraries we always hear about are launching yet another social tool or widget on their blog-based, RSS-equipped, Meebo’d-to-the-hilt Web site? This anxiety can lead to poor decision making and knee-jerk reactions. It might also lead to multiple irons in the 2.0 fire at one time, spearheaded by individuals and departments all over your library. This, in turn, leads to more stress. More stress aggravates bad decisions for technology, which means more Technostress . . . well, you get the idea.

Technodivorce: It’s hard to admit we’ve made a mistake–especially in our profession. The culture of perfect in many libraries at times prevents us from cutting the cord on projects that just aren’t working. Did they really work to begin with? Many things–that IM service for young adults, the readers’ advisory wiki, RSS feeds–sometimes just die on the vine from lack of use, promotion, or upkeep. Found a few months later, a dead library blog speaks volumes about project management and buy in at all levels of the organization. Who is watching this? Maybe potential new hires who are now running for the hills.

Technoshame: The librarian who steps up after one of my presentations and whispers “I don’t know anything about this stuff and have no idea how to begin” might be experiencing a bit of embarrassment. The world is moving just too fast. Fear not! And feel no shame. It’s never too late to kickstart an institutional learning program or learn on your own. See the tips below for more.

Technophobia: This librarian is frozen with fear about new tech. Often the reaction is to oppose vigorously. In the right position, this person can infect a good portion of the organization. Tech projects stand still until any light of day vanishes. Is it really the technology or is it rapid change that causes the fear? Sometimes I think it’s more a fear of the open, transparent times we’re moving into more than blog software or a wiki for planning the new branch or department.