The present study attempted to answer two questions: do academic library users have a distinctive and useful input to make to library strategic planning? If they do, what mechanisms will permit them to participate effectively in this planning process? To address these questions research was carried out in two stages at a single institutional site, the Canberra College of Advanced Education. The first of these utilised a structured group discussion process, Nominal Group Technique (NGT). This was used both as an indicator of user planning priorities and as a pilot research technique contributing to the design of a subsequent survey. This survey obtained a response rate of over 90 percent from a sample of 379. The study attempted to establish that academic staff and students do have a worthwhile input to make to planning by testing for congruence between the rankings of library planning priorities of these user groups and the rankings of planning priorities of Library staff. No strong positive correlations were established between the priorities of student groups and Library staff, although in the survey the priorities of academic staff and Library staff were found to be related. These results suggest users do have a worthwhile input to make to library strategic planning. Other tests for congruence were also applied between and within respondent groups, because if a group was found to have different priorities there would be a prima facie case for consulting members of that group as part of the planning process. Both mechanisms used in the present study were considered successful. User surveys have been employed for planning in previous studies with a future-oriented component. However, it appears that this may have been the first formally reported application of NGT to library management. Experience in the present study suggests it is a highly suitable technique for situations such as strategic planning, where generation of ideas or comment on priorities is required. However, an attempt to establish congruence between the results obtained using NGT and those obtained from the survey yielded inconclusive results. It is believed that major changes in the institutional environment were principally responsible for this, although a methodological limitation may also have contributed. The study concludes with suggestions for further research.