S.O.A.R. Analysis – Summary of Results by Library Type (not prioritized)
Academic Libraries
Strengths
- Resource sharing
- Delivery & ILL
- Statewide organization – MLS is 1 not 6
Opportunities
- Collaborating, Facilitating
- Multi-type
- Specific projects
- Meetings (online)
- Pilot programs
Aspirations
- Library leader
- Pro-active leadership
- Technology
- Advocacy
- Collaboration
- MLS “pushes in nicest way”
Results
- Increase use of MLS services
- Multi-type, collaborative
- Visiblity/awareness of MLS
- Track via internal MLS stats
Public Libraries
Strengths
- Staff
- Delivery
- Statewide aspects/all kinds of libraries (collaboration, community)
- Continuing Education
- Advisory Services
- Databases
Opportunities
- Collaboration and standardization on statewide level
- Expanded and improved online content
- Advocacy
Aspirations
- High levels of communications, marketing, and advocacy
- Libraries with modern technology
- Statewide coordination
- Resources of all kinds are shared among libraries (content, materials, staff, and programs)
Results
- Statewide library card
- High levels of library and library materials use
- MLS is a recognized leader
School Libraries
Strengths
- Database access
- MassCat
- Continuing Education/programs
- PDP provider
Opportunities
- Lots of school members, not a lot of participation
- Have access to every child in K-12 (future public library patrons)
- Inform public about importance of school librarians
Aspirations
- More than 2 youth services advisors
- MLS showcase all library types, change perception of what “library” is
- Continue to provide, maintain and grow services, especially electronic resources
Results
- More school librarians employed, a librarian in every school
- More school library voices in MLS
- Increase in database usage
Special Libraries
Strengths
- Databases – Newspapers are especially important
- Variety of continuing education topics that are important to special libraries
- Access to MassCat & OCLC
Opportunities
- Targeted communication from MLS staff to special libraries
- CE workshops that apply to specials
- Make greater use of specialized expertise of special library staff (ex/ direct reference questions to them)
- Identify and purchase more databases that are more useful to special libraries
- Higher-level sci-tech, business, law, genealogy, etc.
- Greater access to academic resources
- MLS should use clout to advocate with vendors (financial, political, size of membership)
Aspirations
- MLS with greater participation by special libraries and increased visibility for special libraries
- Outreach to professional associations for special libraries
- Increase advocacy (outrage) regarding the closure of special libraries (hospital, etc.)
- Realization that we’re all in it together even if library types are different
Results
- MLS looks more like multi-type library organization
- Higher usage of MLS databases in special libraries because of new titles
- Increased membership
- Increased participation in MLS including on committees by special libraries
Guests
Strengths
- Members – leveraging their strength
- Delivery
- Staff
- Continuing Education
Opportunities
- Statewide library staff to share expertise (non-English language, etc.)
- Collaborations – leverage these
- Working with networks
- Establish best practices
Aspirations
- 100% participation in automated networks
- Continuing Education standards
- Better, cheaper, broader ILL
- Level playing field for all library types & patron types
- More support for tech services
Results
- All libraries are members of a network
- Statewide library card
- Not know only about books
- Having MLS represented at vendor discussions and group meetings
- Requests for training/consulting met quickly
