Information Technology Strategic Planning
Report from Karl Schornagel, Inspector General of Library of Congress, presented to James Billington, the Librarian of Congress
[p 1-2] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The intent of this review was to assess the effectiveness of information technology (IT) strategic planning at the Library of Congress (Library or LC). To evaluate whether the Office of Strategic Initiatives (OSI) Strategic Plan supports and implements the Library’s Strategic Plan as it pertained to the IT infrastructure, the Library Office of the Inspector General (OIG) contracted with A‐TECH Systems, Inc. … the Strategic Planning process for IT at the Library of Congress is not well integrated with essential planning components, and is not instituted Library‐wide, resulting in the following findings.
1. STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS ‐ Strategic Planning for IT is not a unifying force at the Library, does not link directly to the Library Strategic Plan, and does not have a forward‐looking view.
2. IT INVESTMENT PROCESS ‐ Strategic Planning is not linked to the IT investment process, resulting in the duplication of efforts and acquisitions.
3. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ‐ The organizational structure of the Information Technology Services (ITS) directorate at the Library does not foster strategic planning and good IT governance.
4. ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE ‐ The Library is missing an Enterprise Architecture program that should be coupled with a strategy to provide a roadmap for implementing future technology.
5. CUSTOMER SERVICE – ITS customer service needs improvement.
In our opinion, all of these findings are in large part the result of an unclear sense of how IT planning fits into the Library’s mission and the roles and responsibilities of the employees, as well as a lack of linkage between the IT strategic planning processes at the Library and actual performance. Furthermore, those Library employees charged with IT planning need to adopt a holistic view of planning that incorporates and supports a clear mission view with an insight into customer goals and objectives. Although some steps have been taken towards this effort, the progress is not seen Library‐wide.
We received a formal response to this report on April 15, 2009. Library management agreed with the majority of our findings and recommendations. Although management did not feel the improvements since the LC21 report (in 2000) were adequately addressed, we believe these improvements were sufficiently addressed in the executive summary and the conclusion of this report. Management responses and A‐Tech comments are included in the report after each recommendation. The entire response can be found in Appendix E.
[p 7] FINDING 1 – STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
We found that the strategic planning process is not a unifying force at the Library of Congress and not incorporated into the organization’s culture. Specifically, we found that:
1. The Library’s Strategic Planning process was not inclusive of all internal stakeholders;
2. The Library’s IT Strategic Plan does not align well with the Library’s Strategic Plan;
3. The Library’s digitization efforts are scattered and lacking in specific focus.
[p 8] We do not agree with the decision of the Library’s leadership to make strategic planning a management‐only activity. We suggest that the Library allow line employees to actively participate in the strategic planning process. …
Lack of Buyin to Library’s Strategic Plan Below the Senior Management Level (Section headings in boldface)
In interviewing Library staff, we found that most felt they had not been active participants in the development of the Library’s Strategic Plan or in the IT Strategic Plan. Those interviewees who previously worked at other federal agencies felt that the Library’s processes for IT strategic planning were “immature” by comparison.
[p 9] Misaligned Strategic Plans and Ineffective Planning Process
[p 10] The Library Does Not Have a Focused Digitization Vision
… despite many successes, the strategy for “digitizing” the Library collections seems to lack an overall Library vision. …
[p 14] FINDING 2 – IT INVESTMENT PROCESS
We found that the IT investment process at the Library is not linked to its strategic plan.
1. The Library’s IT planning is not linked to an investment process.
2. There is duplication of costs.
3. There is no consistent Cost‐benefit Analysis (Analysis of Alternatives) done
4. The Library does not transparently track IT costs.
No Comprehensive Library Strategy for IT investments
Despite the MDEP process, we concluded that there is not an overall Library strategy for prioritizing and budgeting for IT investments to include new projects, replacement of existing systems, hardware, software, and services support.
[p 15] No Coordination of IT Costs across Library
[p 17] Inconsistent CostBenefit Analyses
[p 18] Lack of Transparency in Tracking IT Costs
[p 22] FINDING 3 – ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The organizational structure of the ITS Directorate at the Library does not foster strategic planning and proper IT governance.
OSI Is Not Optimally Structured
[p 24] RECOMMENDATIONS
The organizational structure of the ITS Directorate needs to be realigned to foster strategic planning and IT governance at the Library.
[p 25] FINDING 4 – ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
The Library lacks an Enterprise Architecture (EA) program. … We found that the Library has not yet implemented an Enterprise Architecture …
[p 28] RECOMMENDATIONS
The Library needs to implement an Enterprise Architecture that could be coupled with a strategy and provide a roadmap for implementing technology in the future.
[p 30] FINDING 5 – CUSTOMER SERVICE
Customer Support Issues
Our review indicated that beyond long‐term strategic planning issues, ITS customers were experiencing significant customer service problems. We believe that this condition is related to the lack of long‐term strategic planning in that ITS does not operate on a long‐term plan to monitor or improve customer service. …
[p 31] The Help Desk is staffed by contractors, whose quality is inconsistent. Help Desk contractors will often install the wrong versions of software and the customers will reinstall the software themselves. Customers have reported that instead of fixing a problem, the Help Desk contractors will frequently replace hard drives or recreate customer accounts.
[p 33] RECOMMENDATIONS
The Library needs to implement a formal process for soliciting customer feedback for recommendations, ideas, and complaints, and implement changes to improve customer service.
[p 35] CONCLUSION
Many recommendations made in this report can be implemented at a low cost and can be accomplished with existing resources. …
The LC21 (2000) report made the following recommendations, which still hold true today:
“…information technology can, should, and must be taken as a strategic asset of the Library as a whole and managed strategically from the very top.“
“…there needs to be serious strategic planning. Concrete projects must be established and undertaken to make real the Library’s ability to select, acquire, preserve, and manage digital content. These initiatives must reach across the whole interlinked set of processes from copyright registration through deposit to reader services.”
[Following p 49] Response, by James Billington. [The body of the document, excerpted above, is native PDF, and can be copied, but Billington’s response is apparently scanned PDF, and not able to be copied.] Billington’s main objection to the report is that it doesn’t give LOC credit for having made progress since the last assessment was done in 2000 (LC21: A Digital strategy for the Library of Congress). But in responding to specific points in the new report, he’s mostly in agreement.