| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: In response to observed changes in the evolving needs of our community, and a call for proactive, strategic planning from campus administration, library and key learning commons partners gathered for a retreat in June 2023 to focus on rightsizing to answer six key questions: What is the right mix of collections to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What is the right variety of spaces to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What are the right mix of on ground and virtual services to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What technologies are needed to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What is the right staffing (model, levels+) to support the teaching, research and learning goals of the Seattle University community? What type of library and learning commons do we want to be in five years? Design/methodology/approach: The article discusses and provides review of literature on concepts like rightsizing and appreciative inquiry/ strengths, opportunities, aspirations and results (SOAR) analysis. It will describe how note-taking, and qualitative analysis of feedback gathered during an in-person exercise can be used to identify actionable goals and activities as a follow-up to an in-person retreat. Findings: To focus this conversation, an appreciative inquiry approach using a SOAR analysis was used, instead of a traditional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis, to utilize a constructivist approach to future thinking. This case study will explore rightsizing as it pertains to academic libraries, and the use of SOAR as a framework for capturing feedback and discussion. Research limitations/implications: As the article is a case study, it represents feedback collected specifically from one university library and learning commons. However, the questions asked, and the consolidated feedback are broad enough to be applicable to similar library systems. Practical implications: The authors aim to demonstrate how appreciative inquiry and strength-based discussions using SOAR can lead to meaningful future-thinking conversations that might otherwise feel threatening. As rightsizing is often connected to downsizing, or conversations about reductions, using techniques like SWOT analysis which focus on weaknesses and threats can lead to anxiety and fear for participants. It can limit conversation, when members of a focus group or retreat feel unwilling to participate. By using constructivist approaches, it invites introspection and participation in a positive way, and focuses on forward thinking – and not just thinking of the present. Originality/value: Rightsizing discussions are not particularly new or unique to libraries but are most seen in articles discussing collections. The scope of this project was to assess not only collections, but services, technology, staffing and spaces – in addition to our collections. Similarly, SOAR analyses are not the most common form of strategic analysis, and an appreciative inquiry approach to a rightsizing conversation in academic libraries is a relatively timely and new topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
