Magazine article
Evaluating a Future Search Conference for an Academic Library's Strategic Planning
Library leadership & management, Vol.27(3)
01 Jan 2013
Abstract
Libraries are seldom specifically identified in lists of the diverse settings where the Future Search has been used. However, libraries have in fact employed the method since at least the mid-1990s. Published accounts of library Future Search conferences identify stakeholders gathering to focus on the future of school libraries,19 public library services and buildings,20 state library plans21 and academic libraries.22 Several of these followed modified versions of the Future Search process. For example, in October 1994, fewer people and a shorter conference than the Future Search design recommends addressed how information systems in the state of Washington can enhance learning at the K-12 levels. The results of the conference included "a powerful reaffirmation of people's efforts . . . culminate to support a larger vision," "stimulated new ideas and action," "establishment of a network of 32 people...committed to being change agents" and "personal connections made...that are the inspiration for later events." The account also emphasized the need for a system to track progress and said that the conference "is a new way to learn; it is a quicker way to effect change. It is an effective strategic planning process that creates energy and works."23 The 2007 conference at the North Carolina Durham County Library concluded with similar insights from participant comments including that it created enthusiasm, interest, and knowledge about the public library.24 Perceptions of those involved in this assessment agree that the Drexel Libraries Future Search conference successfully met these three conditions, although the condition "exploring the local context within the global" was less strongly met. Steering Committee members recognized that the "whole system in the room," "full attendance" and "three days" conditions were well achieved with 56 people representing eight major stakeholders participating over the two and a half days of the scheduled conference. A comment from one of the survey respondents challenged the Future Search core values supporting the "whole system in the room" condition which [Marvin Weisbord] described as "the real world is knowable to ordinary people; their knowledge can be collectively and meaningfully organized. ..Everyone is an equal; planning should not be left to the elite of the organization... [and] the process should empower people to feel more knowledgeable and certain about the future."34 The respondent's comment also contrasts this Future Search value with the academic expectation for expert opinion to inform decisions: Generally the conference was perceived as less successful in leveraging the enthusiasm of participants to engage in taking action beyond the conference. Some responses observed that events like this "work best when there's a real problem to solve; this was more pie in the sky." This confirms an intended effect of a Future Search, but not a shared experience that this conference achieved it. For example, when asked whether they had signed on to one of the action groups identified at the conference, nearly all gave some version of a disengaged response "Maybe I did, but I don't remember" and/or "I didn't do anything related to it afterwards." One Steering Committee member noted the feeling that the things that happened afterward would have happened anyway. There wasn't a sense of urgency, as one person noted the "process is strong when people have strong agendas and missions. We didn't really have that." The action group sign-up didn't represent real commitment. The experience of individuals who would participate in the Future Search process itself must also be considered. Participants in this case characterized their experience as generally positive. Two said they would consider using the method for future planning efforts of their own. Others found the process "fantastic," "fun," or "inspiring." There were a number of comments about the structure of the conference, finding it well organized, though perhaps "a little over-structured." One participant was frustrated by the inability to influence or adapt the methodology, to "sharpen it up," to shorten the process. Another commented that "It would serve them well to see how Future Search could be made more modern" through the use of technology or collaboration tools. One leader noted that the process likely accomplished more, in less elapsed time, than any traditional, linear strategic planning would have. Balancing this viewpoint, another interviewee said that at a point when participants were questioning the process, the facilitators said 'trust us, it will all come together' and that it did. In the end, they said, "we all got it."
Metrics
9 Record Views
Details
- Title
- Evaluating a Future Search Conference for an Academic Library's Strategic Planning
- Creators
- Danuta A NiteckiJennifer LivingstonGerry GorelickSuzanne G Noll
- Publication Details
- Library leadership & management, Vol.27(3)
- Publisher
- American Library Association; Chicago
- Resource Type
- Magazine article
- Language
- English
- Academic Unit
- Drexel University Libraries
- Identifiers
- 991014982200204721