Planning and Reorganization Program (January 1993)

Problem Statement    

Conversations with all levels of the OhioLINK community have been
consistent in highlighting the need to improve:

1.    A vision of what OhioLINK is to accomplish
2.    A plan for how this is to be accomplished
3.    An organization to execute the plan
4.    A methodology to make and communicate decisions

Background

At the point that the local system vendor was selected and initial
functionality determined, the energies of the OhioLINK program became
very focused and concrete.  Database preparation, local site
preparation, retrospective conversion, central site arrangements, and
UMI database loading have been primary tasks in this first stage.

As OhioLINK moves beyond the first stage, there is a gap in
understanding what is to happen next as we move to the long-term
vision.  The tangible next steps that the operationally-oriented
committees and OhioLINK staff can easily focus on are missing.  A
frequent question heard from committee chairs, "What should we do
next?"

These attitudes seem natural based on where the OhioLINK program
stands.  The OhioLINK vision, plan, methodology and organization have
been geared entirely to the preparation, review, selection, and
implementation of the initial III local and central sites.  While many
tasks associated  with this effort will continue for some time, or
indefinitely, others are running their course.  As the implementation
of the initial III sites continues, more interest and energy are
turning to the future.

There is a significant difference in the nature of the activities of
the first stage and those of the next stages.  The first stage was
built around the concept of the local system linked to a central site.
While there are many functions involved, there is significant
experience with the systems to deliver those functions.  The RFP may
have identified new frontiers, but much of what has been delivered are
established capabilities.  The next stages do not have a unifying
element or focus.  In fact, the III foundation presents a diverse set
of functional areas on which to build.  That the OhioLINK community has
not easily identified and fully planned stage 2 activities, given their
nature and the demands of stage 1, is understandable.

Finally, the vision of OhioLINK often is treated as an end-state.  A
something, a one thing that we are trying to achieve.  Discussions need
to highlight the multi-personality, multi-phase nature of the
components of the vision.  It is a process without end.  With a
regularly updated vision to guide us, focus must be on realistic
step-by-step progress.

Recommendations

1.      A vision of what OhioLINK is to accomplish.
    The December 1989 OLIS document does an excellent job of
    creating the grand picture of OhioLINK.  That picture remains
    essentially accurate.  What needs to be done by the  Governing
    Board in concert with the LAC, PAC, and functional committees
    is to distill that vision to a more operational level.

    A.      The key benefits of the vision document must be
    highlighted.

    B.      The benefits must be translated into major services by
    which they will be delivered.

    C.      The priorities for these services and the criteria for
    evaluation of alternatives must be established.

    D.      The service priorities by user type (undergraduate
    students, faculty and graduate students, and library staff)
    must be established.

    E.      Functional action plans must be prepared.

    Appendix I provides drafts of items A-D which provide the
    guidelines for the action plans, Item E.


2.      A plan for how this will be accomplished.
    The greatest benefit of a set of action plans, is to promote
    progress in the context of a complicated set of issues with
    many decision-makers and operational staff involved.  The
    greatest risk, if used too rigidly, is to stifle individual
    initiative and opportunities that occur in the course of
    day-to-day activities.  It is certainly advantageous to be able
    to put in place experimental programs in one or several
    institutions with some flexibility if within the scope of
    OhioLINK goals.  We must consider how to ensure the proper
    balance.

    There is always a sense that with a plan all uncertainty is
    removed and that the future is crystal clear.  In fact, this is
    not the case. As a planning process is put in place the first
    cycles are always less than satisfactory.  The information
    available to fully justify or delineate a plan is always
    initially insufficient.  The plan cannot account for new
    opportunities that arise nor should it prevent opportunistic
    changes.  The plan always includes items meriting wide actions
    -- ranging from full implementation to limited experimentation
    to simple analysis.  And most importantly, the plan is merely a
    snapshot of an ongoing process that is always in some state of
    flux.  But it should always provide focus until that focus is
    consciously changed.

    The plans need to be created across the breadth of functional
    areas and need to show coordination across inevitable committee
    overlaps.  The plans are summaries of intended action
    consistent with the Governing Board's established guidelines.
    As action plans their focus is on realistic, doable,
    afford-able actions.  The first portion of each plan consists
    of the four items covered in recommendation #1.  These become
    the guidelines for operating plans and individual program
    creation and evaluation.


    A generic functional plan would consist of the following contents.

A.      Translation of general benefits, service priorities,
approaches, and end user priorities to that specific functional area.
How do the general guidelines established by the Governing Board
translate to the specific needs of this area? Timeframes should be
included in the priorities.  Focus should not only be on what should be
done but also on the reality of when it should be done.  The plans
should attempt to cover up to three years if possible.

B.    Specific summaries for each action:
    1.    Statement of action
    2.    Benefit provided and users serviced
    3.    Discussion of alternatives, specifics of the action, etc.
    4.    Cost/saving analysis
    5.    Tasks and timetables

This general format can work for actions of varying types. Fully
operational programs, test programs, III enhancements grouped into a
single action, and relatively unformulated actions at early stages of
thought can be accommodated.  If thought of as a process, an action
summary can be included in a plan and enhanced until it is ready for a
final recommendation and decision. A summary need not be expansive to
deal adequately with its topic at an early stage.  It should be an easy
vehicle to introduce an idea and at an early stage focus on the right
questions about it.  Further, it should be easy to update and enhance
and use as a communication vehicle.  Action summaries provide a common,
consistent vehicle for creating, analyzing, and deciding the OhioLINK
agenda.

An initial approach to create these plans is for the OhioLINK staff to
work with each of the committee chairs to draft the plans.  This would
provide initial consistency across the plans.  These drafts would then
be reviewed and modified as necessary by the full committees.  On an
on-going basis, the committees in concert with the OhioLINK staff would
be the focal point for review, additions, modifications, expansion and
execution of the action plans.  The LAC, PAC and Governing Board would
review, provide direction on modifications and additions, and approve
these plans.

Getting through an initial creation will be difficult and may initially
require more updating and review as the OhioLINK community adapts to
this system and learns what is working and what is not.  As to the
review timing, general progress should be comprehensively reviewed at
the Governing Board, PAC, and LAC semi-annually with full restatement
of the plans annually.

Until we know what our agenda is, we don't know what work needs to be
accomplished and whether OhioLINK staff, the steering committees, ad
hoc task forces, or  other work groups are the most appropriate means
to execute the tasks.  There will continue to be work in progress, but
the sooner we get a set of plans, the better prepared we will be to act
in a complete fashion.

"Sooner" does not mean in advance of required building blocks.  At a
certain point, our planning efforts become futile in the absence of a
known or "expected" operating and capital budgets.  We are particularly
vulnerable to budget uncertainties due to the  unique capital budget
situation, and the potential disruption from the Comdata contract.  The
following is proposed with respect to the planning process:

    a.Continue to work with the existing committees and proceed
    with priority work and initiatives that are obvious or likely
    components of more explicit future plans.  Let's not bring
    progress to a halt just for the plan's sake.

    b.      Begin, through the OhioLINK staff, in concert with the
    existing Chairs, to draft the elements of the planning
    documents.  It will be a learning process in what our plans
    will consist of.  The OhioLINK Executive Director should
    provide leadership in beginning the process during this
    transitional period.

    c.      Obtain additional input from LAC, PAC and the Governing
    Board on the overall objectives and user service priorities as
    proposed in Appendix I.

    d.      After selection of the various committee members as
    noted below, and assuming more know-ledge of our future
    budgets, create the first plan editions during the Feb-Mar 93
    timeframe.

    e.      Plan for a spring meeting of the Governing Board, LAC,
    PAC, Chairs, OhioLINK staff and other needed personnel to fully
    discuss the plans and their implications.  Through this meeting
    arrive at a sense of consensus and approval.  Such a meeting
    could be held at one of the State park lodges.

3.    An organization to execute the plan

    A.      A LAC coordinating committee (not steering committee)
    will be formed consisting of four library directors.  This new
    committee will replace the software enhancements committee as
    well as provide general oversight, screening and review of
    committee work and activities on behalf of LAC.  The specifics
    of the coordinating committee's mandate should be determined
    somewhat case by case at the discretion of the LAC Chair until
    clear routine and advantageous procedures develop.  It is not a
    decision making group, but advisory and a defacto, standing ad
    hoc committee to facilitate the work of LAC.  The committee
    chairs, and others, will be called upon as needed to consult
    with this group in the course of its work.

    The members of this committee will consist of the LAC chair and
    three directors appointed by the chair.  These latter three
    will serve for three years with terms expiring one per year.
    Which means, initially, of the first t hree, one would serve
    for one year, one for two years, and one for three years t o
    get this cycle underway.  The LAC Chair and appointed directors
    can serve cons ecutive terms.  LACCC duties are not to be
    carried out through proxy.

    The initial three directors of the LAC Coordinating Committee
    (LACCC) members should be appointed no later than the 12/9/92
    meeting.  The first year will be considered a trial, after
    which, if deemed successful, the first director will be
    replaced as part of the normal cycle with the one revolving
    LACCC member appointed each December.

    The current LAC chair will serve through calendar 1993 for
    continuity in working with the committee reorganization and
    OhioLINK issues.  The initial new term will run January 1994 to
    December 1995.  Immediately preceding each new term, a
    nominating committee will be appointed by the chair in October
    to present a single candidate for confirmation by the LAC in
    November.

    B.      The current nine committees should be reformulated into
    four major standing committees with other committee support as
    noted below.  With nine committees, we have too many
    coordination and communication points to facilitate a process
    that sets and keeps priorities in order.  Selection of new
    committee members that reflects the interests and scope of all
    the former committees is crucial.


        New Committee                    Former Committees

        Database Standards             Database Preparation
        and Management                  Retrospective Conversion
                                                   Acquisitions/Serials

        User Services                       OPAC
                                                   External Databases
                                                   Workstation
                                                    Education & Training


        Cooperative Information          CMDC
        Resources Management    

        Inter-Campus Services            ILL/Circulation/Document Delivery

    C.      These groups would be supported by task and time-bound
    task forces that will be appointed and be comprised of standing
    committee members and others on an as needed basis.  The use of
    task forces is a shift we need to make in order to focus on
    outputs and to generate the amount of effort needed to move
    forward.  The task force approach maintains the broad-based
    participation that has been and will continue to be the
    strength and backbone of the OhioLINK effort.

    The Lead Implementors group will continue as a communication
    and training vehicle under the general coordination of OhioLINK
    staff.  Its continued existence will be reviewed no later than
    December 1993 and annually thereafter.

    D.      Currently we have committee members and associates.
    This two-tier approach provides each institution with a
    representative on each committee in at least a secondary
    fashion.  It also ensures appropriate awareness at each
    institution of issues that may ultimately affect each one.
    With the combining of committees, it becomes more difficult to
    communicate to all interested and required parties in each
    institution utilizing this one institution/one member or
    associate formula.  This, and the possible perception of the
    reduced role of associates, must be considered.

    Recommendations are:

    1.      That the four full committees continue to consist of
    one representative of each member institution, nine members and
    nine associates.  The full committee would be expected to meet
    up to four times per year, especially as the new committees
    begin operations.  The express purpose of such meetings would
    be to discuss and review the latest priorities and plans as
    part of the annual OhioLINK planning process.

    If through normal selection procedures, a representative from
    each of the law and medical library communities is not on each
    active committee (rather than associates), then associates or
    other representatives will be added to the active committees by
    LACCC to ensure participation for these two groups.

    2.      That the term "affiliates" be created to mean anyone in
    each institution, not included in the full membership, who
    wishes to receive minutes and other e-mail regularly exchanged
    by each committee.  By allowing affiliates to self-select
    themselves, this allows multiple staff in each institution
    access to the committees workings and the ability to advise
    their representatives or the committee directly.

    3.      That the currently defined structure for selection of
    members and associates be maintained.  This has been defined in
    a 3/17/92 document drafted by Arnold Hirshon.  A draft of this
    revised document is attached as Appendix II and includes
    additional important details not mentioned in the body of this
    paper.  With broader functional interests represented in
    several of the new committees, careful thought must be given to
    the selection and composition of the committees.  LACCC will
    have the final jurisdiction on the selection of committee
    members and affiliates.

    4.      That the committee members and associates be selected
    by the LACCC in concert with the new chairs by 2/15/93, based
    on recommendations received from the library directors in
    January.


    E.      The selection of the committee chairs must recognize
    that the roles of the committees change as we reorganize and
    move to new stages of OhioLINK's development.  If not
    officially, then informally, thought needs to be given to the
    qualifications of the chairs.  While the need for functional
    operating proficiency remains, there is a greater need in the
    new organizational structure and at this stage of OhioLINK
    development, for the chairs to exhibit leadership and
    management strengths in planning the priorities and activities
    of OhioLINK and transferring these to OhioLINK's staff, task
    forces, or whatever work groups are needed.  With the OhioLINK
    foundation in place, the ability to create and act on new
    plans, derived from a vast array of enhancements and new
    service possibilities, becomes critical.  As the leaders of a
    reduced number of standing committees, the chairs will play a
    major role in shaping OhioLINK's future and in accomplishing
    these critical tasks.

    The first act of the LACCC directors will be to present
    selections to LAC for approval at the 1/15/93 meeting.  Chairs
    would serve for a minimum two year assignments and can be
    reselected for additional terms.

    The Chairs will meet as a group as needed to coordinate agendas
    and tasks.  The Chairs, as a committee, have no authority over
    one another's activities, but act as a communications device
    between committees.

    Each Chair should routinely supply the other Chairs with
    meeting minutes, recommendations and plans for review and
    comment.  Each chair may advise the other chairs, but such
    advice is not binding on the actions of the other committees.
    Official comments on other Chair's plans should be made to the
    LAC Chair and OhioLINK staff liaisons for purposes of
    resolution if significant disagreements exist.

    F.      Attached as Appendix III is a generic statement of the
    scope of responsibilities common to each committee and the
    broad functional areas of responsibility for each.  Emphasis is
    equally split between the priority and agenda setting role and
    the operational role.  It also allows for more direct use of
    OhioLINK staff and time and task-bound task forces to execute
    work for each committee's review.  The critical new role is in
    planning our agendas.  The committees should play a major role
    in helping make the hard choices among the diverse and often
    equally appealing options.

    G.      We will continue to move forward with current
    committees and task forces as needed.  The Medical Task Force
    Review, the Document Delivery RFP, the CMDC Serials TOC RFI
    creation are examples of activities that should continue.  If
    others are deemed critical, they too should be formed within
    the outline and recommendations herein.  The following
    guidelines will be used henceforth with respect to task force
    formation:


    a.      A task force must have a defined purpose, timetable and
    expected output.

    b.      A task force should normally be chaired by a current
    member of a committee to provide continuity with the overall
    management  process.

    c.      A task force should be kept as small as possible to
    facilitate the completion of its work and control its cost.
    Three to eight members is a good range depending on the task.

    d.      To improve the perception and actual level of
    participation by associates, priority should be given to their
    selection to ad hoc task forces.

    e.      A task force can be recommended by any chair but must
    be approved by the LACCC.

    f.      Exceptions to these guidelines are allowable with
    proper justification.

    H.      An important point to clarify is the relationship of
    OhioLINK central staff to the committees.  The second half of
    this fiscal year will be our first experience beyond a skeleton
    staff level.  OhioLINK central will be better prepared to
    handle both the day-to-day implementation support as well as
    the planning support for the OhioLINK program.  With the
    increase in full-time staff there will be natural tendency to
    take more initiative and responsibility  In any event, a new
    dynamic will develop that may be perceived as a more centralist
    approach.

    As the OhioLINK agenda becomes more diverse, the need for
    OhioLINK staff to play an ongoing and important role in
    coordination, advisement and direction of OhioLINK activities
    in concert with the committees becomes critical.  With every
    day knowledge of and involvement in OhioLINK operations, the
    OhioLINK staff will be able to provide unique insights into the
    potential and practicality of proposed activities.  OhioLINK
    staff also have been hired with specific expertise and continue
    to focus on enhancing those talents.  The OhioLINK management
    process should tap this resource effectively..  This should be
    welcomed while still maximizing OhioLINK member participation
    which is required for the program's success.  Specifically,
    these steps are recommended in concert with the committee
    reorganization.

    1.      Each committee and task force will have an assigned
    liaison from OhioLINK staff.  Meetings should be planned to
    ensure liaison attendance to maximize OhioLINK staff knowledge
    of all committee activities and ability to be effective
    participants.

    2.      Chairs should work closely with the liaison in planning
    meeting agendas, pre-meeting material preparation, document
    writing and review and other general activities of the
    committee or task forces.

    3.      The liaison will work hand-in-hand with each committee
    to execute its charge.  The committees should leverage the
    full-time OhioLINK staff's time to maximum effect in planning,
    executing and directing the work of the committee for review
    and comment.


    4.      Proposals having operational impact on the OhioLINK
    system should specifically include OhioLINK staff in
    preparation and be submitted for comment to the OhioLINK
    liaison for final review by OhioLINK staff prior to submittal
    to the LAC Chair.  OhioLINK staff have the most complete
    knowledge of the system and can assess the accuracy of the
    impact.

    5.      OhioLINK staff, under the direction of the Executive
    Director, have responsibility and authority to make day-to-day
    operational decisions affecting the Central System.  OhioLINK
    is in the best position to provide consistent, quality
    operational direction.  OhioLINK will seek to get timely input
    from the appropriate committee in all cases at the discretion
    of the Executive Director.

4.    A methodology to make and communicate decisions.

The methodology for decision making is in transition and cannot be
clearly defined.  Although an outline of our expected plans has been
provided in this document, we will not really know if this outline is
accurate until we begin the planning process.

The plans will provide a device to provide a common knowledge base for
the Governing Board, PAC and LAC.  But it is also accurate that how
these as yet uncertain plans will be used among the three is quite
uncertain.  Both the contents of plans and the process for deliberating
over them are yet to be determined.

Generally we can expect the LAC to be the prime operationally oriented
group with additional emphasis on policy formation.  The PAC's
composition and mission is under review, but is likely to remain
focused on a capacity as watchdog of user interests.  The Governing
Board will continue its role as ultimate authority on all OhioLINK
policies, operations, and budgets.


12/17/92
APPENDIX I
OhioLINK 92/93 - 94/95 PROGRAM

1A    Benefits

    The major benefits that OhioLINK is to realize for the State of
    Ohio can be summarized from the December 1989 OLIS document.

    .       Improve the Ohio higher education community's ability
        to leverage our resources to respond to the
        accelerating pace of newly-published material, both
        traditional and electronic, that is outstripping the
        ability of any single library to acquire, catalog, and
        store.

    .       Maximize the utility of the State's major investment in
        library resources through improved access and delivery
        mechanisms.

    .       Improve the Ohio information user's ability to keep up
        with the ever-increasing volume of information
        published in more diverse formats.

    .    Improve the rapid access to material the users need.

1B    Service Goals

    The major services by which these benefits will be manifested
    also can be summarized from that document.

    .       OhioLINK will link university libraries and the State
        Library so that they will appear as a single resource
        to students, faculty and other researchers.

    .       OhioLINK will be a gateway to the rapidly expanding
        world of information stored in electronic formats.

    .       OhioLINK will use advanced software and hardware
        technology to provide researchers with a comprehensive
        and intelligent guide to the effective use of library
        and information resources.

    .       Students, faculty and other researchers who want to
        borrow materials will receive loaned books and other
        materials within several days; photocopied journal
        articles and other short texts within 24 hours.

    .       OhioLINK will provide for more cost-effective use of
        existing resources by managing the purchase of new
        books and journals more cooperatively, by negotiating
        for information services on a statewide basis, and by
        bringing economies of scale to software maintenance
        agreements and the support of library computer
        systems.

1C    Service Criteria
    
    To guide operational planning and decision making during the
    next three years, the afore mentioned benefits and services
    must have direct and specific criteria against which proposed
    and executed services can be measured.  It is fully expected
    that more services will be proposed than can be executed at any
        point in time.

    The major criterion that each service in and of itself, and
    each service in relation to other services will be measured
    against is its ability to maximize the ratio of Ohio's:

    statewide information services delivered
        information delivery cost

    Increasing state-wide information services by more efficient or
    effective means or reducing costs of currently delivered
    information improves the ratio.  While improvement in
    individual institutions' ratios are of value both as
    intermediate and end goals, priority is placed on means that
    create funda-mental changes or widespread improvements in the
    statewide ratio.  The improvement can come about through one of
    three ways.

    a.      The capability to improve access to and use of
    information resources held by OhioLINK member institutions and
    central site at the most advantageous costs.

    b.      The capability to improve access and use of the vast
    array of externally available resources at the most
    advantageous costs.

    c.      The capability to fundamentally improve access and use
    of expanded information formats and media in concert with
    readily available electronic text-based information and to
    provide more useful fundamental means to manipulate all
    information formats and media through advanced software.

NOTE:  It is recognized that the ratio of delivery of information
services compared to information delivery cost is an illusive,
multi-faceted creature.  Measurement of a program's benefit to the
ratio may be arrived at subjectively.

1D    User Service Priorities

    OhioLINK institutions have three major classes of patrons --
    faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students, as well
    as the library staff.  Additionally, it is hoped to expand
    access to OhioLINK resources to the community colleges.

    Within the three-year horizon, the general priorities for each
    group during this time period which will guide specific service
    priorities follow:


Faculty and Graduate Students

    .       Improve cost effectiveness of acquisition and delivery
        of more specialized, expensive, esoteric material while
        maintaining and improving access

    .       Provide services external to the library that improve
        the effectiveness and efficiency of research related
        information inquiries and improve the ability to
        integrate the results with the scholar's other
        information materials.

Undergraduate Students

    .       Improve access and use of home institution and
        intra-state materials and databases

    .       Improve statewide cost effectiveness of commonly-held
        or commonly needed materials and databases -- link
        these to statewide holdings and availability

    .       Improve the service levels for the delivery of articles
        from the most heavily used serial materials

Community Colleges

    .       Provide the full range of OhioLINK services and
        capabilities to an initial group.

    .       Plan for full inclusion of the community colleges
        within acceptable timeframes and costs to OhioLINK and
        each college.

Library Staff and Operations

    .       Provide significant improvements in management
        information that supports the cooperative library
        operational effort to share resources more effectively
        while still achieving improvement in patron use and
        access.

    .       Improve operational efficiency to reduce costs of per
        unit of information supplied.

NOTE:  It is recognized that benefits fall into several or all
categories in addition to the prime audience.

12/17/92



APPENDIX II
OHIOLINK COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS:  SUMMARY
12/17/92

The following quick summary is not intended to substitute for the full
document.

1.    GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
    a.    Optimal Committee Size.  Nine (9) regular voting members.
    b.    Institutional Appointments.  Appointments are for the institution, not for the individual.
    c.    Number of Institutional Representatives per Committee.  One maximum.
    d.    One Appointment Per Person.  Normally one committee assignment per person.
    e.    Staggered Terms.  New steering committee members and chairs generally will be assigned an initial term length of 1, 2 or 3 years.  Terms will run from January through December.  All new appointments will be for three years.  All terms are renewable.
    f.    Representation.  All libraries are to be given a fair opportunity to be represented.
    g.    Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Chairs and Vice-Chairs are appointed annually by the LAC Coordinating Committee (LACCC).  Vice-Chairs do not automatically succeed the chair.
    h.    Appointments.  The final responsibility rests with the LACCC who will solicit nominations from library directors.
    i.    Implementation.  This system begins immediately for 1993 to establish the staggered appointments.  LACCC will set the initial staggered terms and make 1993 appointments.

2.    COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATES
    a.    Each institution either has a committee member or an associate named to each committee.
    b.    Library directors designate committee members and associates nominees.
    c.    Committee members are paired with associates.  The former are responsible for distributing information and soliciting comments.

3.    RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATES
    a.    Attendance at Meetings.  Committee members are expected to attend all meetings.  Associates attend quarterly.
    b.    Substitutes for Committee Members.  Substitutes should rarely attend for a member.
    c.    Liaisons.  Liaisons between committees are permitted.
    d.    Committee associates have priority for task force assignments.
    e.    Creation of a task force must be approved by the LACCC.

4.    AFFILIATES
    a.    Any library staff member may select to be an affiliate of any one or more of the four standing committees.  As such, affiliates will be placed on the committee e-mail lists, receive all committee minutes and other generally discussed committee activities over the e-mail list.
    b.    Affiliates are free to comment directly to their institution's committee member or directly to the e-mail list.
    e.    An affiliate remains one as long as the individual desires.



OHIOLINK COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
12/17/92

1.    GOALS FOR THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS

    a.    To appoint committees that will be effective in building consensus.
    b.    To appoint committees that are fully representative of the library and user communities.
    c.    To ensure effective operations by maintaining committees at a useful and manageable size.
    d.    To ensure that the load of committee work is borne equitably by all institutions, that all institutions participate to the fullest extent practical.

To reach these goals, it is important to:  secure the services of the best talent in the state, ensure balanced committee representation, and ensure that committee members meet the needs of the state as a whole rather than represent only the home institution.

2.    GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

The following are general factors that should be considered in the appointment process to achieve the greatest representation practical among participating institutions.

    a.    Optimal Committee Size.  Steering committees normally should be limited to a maximum of nine (9) regular voting members.  In addition, committees have associate members (see Section 3 below) and may have appointed ad hoc task forces.

    b.    Institutional Appointments.  Appointments are for the institution, not for the individual.  If an individual transfers employment from one OhioLINK institution to another, his or her committee appointment ceases.

        As slots become vacant during the year, the institution where the vacancy occurs are given the first priority to replace that individual.  If the individual to be replaced brought unique expertise that is still needed by the committee, the institution should be asked to consider whether it can fill this need when making its nomination or whether it would be better to make an appointment from a different institution.  If the institution cannot supply the needed expertise, the committee chair may recommend a replacement from the associates' membership.

        If the original institution opts not to appoint someone to fill a committee vacancy:
        1.    and the appointment has more than one year remaining, the LACCC may reappoint from another institution.
        2.    and the appointment has less than one year remaining, the position will remain vacant until the next appointment cycle.
        3.    The original institution still needs to appoint someone as a committee member.

Mid-term replacements should be treated as new appointments at the next appointment cycle.

Regular committee membership on all OhioLINK committees is open to the staff of all OhioLINK member institutions and to the separately administered libraries within those institutions, such as their law and medical libraries.

    c.    Number of Institutional Representatives per Committee.  There is a maximum of one institutional representative per committee.

    d.    One Appointment Per Person.  There is normally one committee assignment per person.  Multiple appointment are generally avoided so that multiple committees can easily schedule simultaneous meetings and thus make more practical the attendance at OhioLINK meetings of individuals from the same institution on the same day.

    e.    Staggered Terms.
        1.    New committee members and chairs generally will be assigned an initial term length of 1, 2 or 3 years.  To ensure continuity, committee chairs will receive initial appointments for at least a two-year term.
        2.    Terms will run from January through December.
        3.    All new appointments will be for three years.
        4.    All terms are renewable.

    f.    Representation.  Efforts will be made to ensure that all libraries are given a fair opportunity to be represented on all committees, and that the committee membership is fully representative of the library and user communities.

    g.    Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs.  Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs are appointed annually by the LACCC.  All committee chairs should represent different institutions.  The Vice-Chair does not automatically succeed the Chair.

    h.    Appointments.  The final appointing responsibility rests with the LACCC as delegated by the Governing Board.  Utilizing the LACCC, the Chair will solicit nominations from library directors.  To ensure that committee members are fully effective, directors should strongly consider nominating individuals who have had broad managerial or policy preparation experience, and who work effectively with groups.

        Following the solicitation of nominations, the LACCC will make all committee appointments.  The LACCC will endeavor to balance committee representation by size of library, area of ex-pertise, position levels, etc.  Particularly when appointing committee chairs, the LACCC should carefully consider the record of participation and expertise of the prospective appointees.

        When considering new appointments, the current committee chairs specifically should recommend to the LACCC non-appointment of committee members who have been completely ineffective as demonstrated by objective criteria.  Committee chairs should be encouraged not to recommend individuals who fail to attend meetings regularly, make no verbal contributions at meetings, do no respond to written calls for comments from the chair, etc.  By contrast, appointment should occur if the committee chair simply disagrees with the opinions of the committee member.
    i.    Ad Hoc Task Forces.  When the committee considers an issue or problem that requires special expertise not already represented by regular voting members or additional work beyond the committee's capacities, the committee chairs may appoint a task force on an ad hoc basis.  The term for a task force shall be based upon the estimated time required to resolve the issue or problem; this generally will be less than one year.  The task force chair should be a committee member.  Task force membership should be provided to associates on a priority basis.  The LACCC must approve the creation of all task forces.

    j.    Implementation.  For 1993, this system will begin immediately.  The setting of the staggered terms and all 1993 appointments will be made by the LACCC.



3.    COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATES

    a.    Each institution will either be represented on a committee by a committee member or an associate to maintain communication with the committee.  In addition, participation on each committee is extended to the law and medical library communities.  These two groups will be accorded representation on the active committees (rather than associates).

    b.    The library director from each institution (or, from the law libraries, the Ohio Regional Consortium of Law Libraries) will be responsible for nominating to the LACCC the committee members or associates for each committee.

    c.    The relationship between committee members and associates involves the following:
        1.    Each committee member will be paired with an associate to act as a liaison.
        2.    The committee member is responsible for distributing minutes and other documents, and for soliciting comments from the associate.
        3.    The committee will meet with its associates at least quarterly.



4.    RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

    a.    Attendance at Meetings.  Committee members are expected to attend all meetings, or to notify the committee chair when attendance is not possible.  The committee chair should notify the Chair of the LAC and the appropriate library director about repeated absences.  If there is an extended illness or if a committee member is unable or unwilling to attend meetings, a replacement of that committee member should be considered.

    b.    Substitutes for Committee Members.  The work of the committees relies heavily on continuity.  Therefore, substitutes should rarely attend a a steering committee member, and should do so only with the prior approval of the committee chair.  If there is a repeated need to send a substitute for the same committee member, a replacement should be considered.

    c.    As deemed necessary and appropriate by the committees, liaisons between committees should be permitted to minimize overlap and to increase communication.

    d.    Both members and associates will keep the local campuses advised of committee activities.
APPENDIX III



PROPOSED OhioLINK COMMITTEE CHARGE:


Each committee will, in its designated areas of functional responsibility, and in conjunction with OhioLINK staff:


1.    Recommend policies, procedures and standards necessary for the successful execution of OhioLINK inter-library operations and activities.

2.    Prepare annually, or as otherwise assigned, a report of past activities and operating plans covering future enhancements, new services, or other developments necessary to achieve the OhioLINK vision and the as then currently defined specific objectives and priorities.  Prepare forecasts necessary to size or cost elements of the plans.

3.    Conduct surveys, focus groups or other research techniques to accurately determine user needs.  This activity should be ongoing and used in developing and creating the annual plans.

4.    Provide leadership in executing approved plans in conjunction with OhioLINK staff and member libraries.  Determine the nature of work needed and select as appropriate OhioLINK staff, ad hoc task forces or other work groups.  Examples of activities include:  functional and financial evaluation of alternatives, creation of specific functional requirements, functionality testing, creation of documentation, implementation plans or training materials, RFP/RFI writing and review.

5.    Conduct audits of OhioLINK services to determine if desired goals and objectives are being met or if corrective action is needed.  This activity should be on-going and be used in developing and creating the annual plans.

6.    Communicate regularly on its activities to LAC, PAC, Governing Board or other committees, its own committee members and others.

7.    Based on the approved plans, assist in identification of grant opportunities and in creation of the grant proposals.

8.    Maintain a high level of awareness of advances and activities in other information and library systems and in commercial products of potential use to OhioLINK.



AREAS OF COMMITTEE FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

(Some overlap is assumed)

Database Standards and Management
.    Acquisition and Serials control modules of the INNOPAC software
.    Bibliographic, authority, and holdings standards and practices
.    Retrospective conversion
.    Database preparation, maintenance and quality

User Services
.    Informational and educational materials for users and staff
.    Electronic information resource implementation
.    User interface design, content and standards

Cooperative Information Resources Management
.    Coordinating cooperative collection management and development
.    Composite collection and access information and policies
.    Electronic information resource selection

Inter-Library Services
.    Inter-Library circulation and document delivery