I have to say that, like a number of other people, I was struck by Mark Hirschey’s piece in Lawrence Journal World decrying the state of the modern library. I certainly understand and appreciate Sarah Houghton’s retort–it sums up my initial reaction by taking inventory on many of the great, innovative, and worthy services libraries do provide their communities. Michael Stephens also points out some of the intrinsic value of libraries.

However, I can’t help but think that we’re missing something really important here–that Mr. Hirschey is exactly the type of person we need to be listening to. While I fundamentally disagree with his conclusions, he’s raising a number of very serious and reasonable concerns. While his opinion may not be shared by the majority of his community, it’s an indication of what’s to come. He will not be the last to raise these same points–critics of libraries are only going to get louder and their arguments stronger. Why? Because, as much as we do not want to admit it, there is some truth to those arguments. Libraries are neophyte marketers in a world where perception and opinion trumps logic and truth. So we can circle the wagons and remind ourselves how important we are, or we can be pragmatic and do something about this.

I was on a conference call the other day with several people talking about a new web site and the topic of public perception came up. I relayed some comments I heard on an AM radio talk show I had been listening to in a waiting room somewhere. The radio personality was talking about the piece of legislation we know as DOPA and was being highly critical of librarians, insisting that libraries were standing with and protecting child pornographers and pedophiles. When I heard this, I got so angry that I think I swore out loud and earned a few glares. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that libraries, and certainly the ALA, is virtually incapable of doing spin control. Some might argue that it’s not the job of libraries to do spin control, but the sad truth is that it’s an unpleasant necessity.

I faithfully watch a fantastic show on HBO called The Wire that is now in its fourth season. One of the main antagonists is an untouchable drug dealer named Marlo who, when confronted by a security guard after stealing something from a convenience store, says, “You want it to be one way, but it’s the other way.” I thought that was a brilliant line. Do we want it to be one way when it’s actually the other? I think some of us do.

The problem with Mr. Hirschey’s argument is not his reasoning, but the conclusion he arrives at which is, “don’t build a library.” He writes:

We need to embark on an aggressive plan to bring broadband access to the doorstep of each and every home in Lawrence. There is no need to do anything in west Lawrence, the private sector has already done that in the newer part of town. It’s east Lawrence, the older part of town, that desperately needs access to new information technology.

He’s absolutely right, and again here:

Don’t expect kids, seniors, and everyone else to trudge downtown for the convenience of librarians. Put information technology at the fingertips of every kid, and every senior in Lawrence. Because low incomes limit the ability of some to connect to high-speed access, even when it’s brought to their door, the city might give low-income families computers on a needs basis. Otherwise, offer reliable Internet access at small 24/7 City of Lawrence Free Internet Cafes (”libraries”) that are broadly distributed for easy walking access by kids and seniors.

I agree on both points, especially with the “Don’t expect kids, seniors, and everyone else to trudge downtown” part. But let me ask you this, is there any reason why a new library initiative couldn’t encompass all those things? Why not subsidize wifi hot-spots around town that default to the library web page when a user first logs on? If you don’t have the money, raise it. Why not have our libraries represented on planning commission boards so that we can push for ubiquitous broadband access? Why the hell are we not the ones spear-heading these efforts? Let Mr. Hirschey answer that: because many libraries are “monument[s] to 19th century information technology.” Those of us in the biblioblogosphere might not fall into that 19th Century category, but we all know that for every one of us, there are five or ten of our colleagues (who are excellent at what they do) that plug away just as they always have, blissfully unaware of the storm outside.

I think that this is changing, too slowly, but changing nonetheless. The problem is that libraries are not typically aggressive beasts. I’m afraid we need to be now or we will be quickly trumped by other sources of information that will have the ability to distribute information much more efficiently and rapidly. I’m afraid that, at some point, Mr. Hirschay’s conclusions will be shared by enough people.

So, where and how do we get aggressive?

Damage Control

I used the DOPA example to illustrate the need for libraries to do spin and damage control. We need people at the national level (and the ALA is the likely place for this) who are talented marketers who can sell the nuances of our message. We just don’t have enough of this right now. Yes, I’m talking about talking heads–everyone else does it, we should too because the alternative is that we get chewed up on issues like DOPA and the Patriot Act. We’re not really unpatriotic child pornographers, but there are a lot of people who are painting us as such.

I understand that this seems like selling out to the very media we’re trying to provide an alternative to, but if that’s where the “message” and the people are, why are we not there? I mentioned in a previous post that I didn’t believe that there was a moral equivalency between what we do and what those who would limit our rights are doing. I still believe that, but we’re not doing a good job of taking the fight to where the fight is. What do we do? We take our licks, then come back to the flock to spread our message where we’re met with approval and acceptance. Good, if you want to delude yourself, bad if you want to explain yourself to a confused public.

Radical Change

More specifically, the tolerance of radical change. I think as we push further into the 21st Century, a lot of librarians are going to have to reconcile their expectations of what they think a library should be with what a library needs to be. This is hard, because in order to effect the changes needed to do business in this new, emerging market (yes, we’re part of a market), and find a place among the commercial giants we need to be much more nimble than we are now.

Every organization is like a piece of raw material in that each one has its own flexural strength–that is, you can subject a group of people to a finite amount of change before something ruptures and causes the group cohesion to break down. I love libraries, but they are not very adaptable organizations. They could be, however. Through a regimen of conditioning, hiring practices and managing expectations of staff, libraries can eventually get to the point where they are more flexible–injured athletes do the same thing with their bodies in physical therapy. We are out of shape and complacent and its starting to really show.

Aggressive Lobbying

Does the ALA have a strong lobby in Washington? Well according to this page, which only gives data up through 2002 (but the numbers are basically flat), “ALA lobby expenses average $173,000 for a six-month reporting period or about $350,000 per year. Expenses are primarily incurred at the Washington Office based on time reported by staff.” Considering that the New York Library alone spent $80,000 of its own money in 2004 on lobbying efforts, what does that say about this particular priority? ALA has opted for a cap of $1 million on lobbying, which has not come close to to being approached. For six years, our First Lady has been a librarian–have we used that to its full potential?

We need to be investing in this effort now so that we can secure our ability to do things in the future, such as distribute content electronically, maintain our right to determine our own filtering policies, or collect whatever material we want. Right now, we are severely hamstrung by an extremely vague fair use clause that prohibits libraries from coming to the same party as the likes of iTunes and Rhapsody. The legality of sharing electronic content is our biggest impediment. Without more flexible distribution options, there will be no long tail for us.

Activism, not anger

I predict that we’ll start seeing more and more library opponents like Mr. Hirschey. We have the choice of reacting with anger and disgust to their views or engaging and talking to them directly to find a way to meet their needs and expectations. After all, if Mr. Hirschey walked in to our library and asked us directly if we could do X, Y, or Z, we wouldn’t shout or laugh him off the premises–it’s not the way we conduct business inside our libraries. That same approach to customer service shouldn’t stop at the threshold of our front door.

The best defense is a great offense, and actively addressing the very same concerns he talks about–chiefly the issue of providing broadband access to low-income families–should be a major concern of ours. He’s not an asshole, he’s genuinely concerned for a group of disenfranchised people–perhaps more concerned than we are. So you tell me, why are we not doing anything about connecting up low-income families? Perhaps if we were a little more proactive about addressing the needs of our community, we wouldn’t be subjected to some of this negative public perception.

The real story here centers on a few simple questions. Why should we get those dollars? Are we entitled to the money we get because we’ve always gotten it? I’m not so sure–it might do us some good to scratch and fight for our sustenance–the people Mr. Hirschey wants to help certainly do for theirs.

I’m sitting in seat 12C of a Delta Airlines MD-88, mid-flight on an early AM flight out of New Orleans and trying to assemble my thoughts and feelings about ALA 2006. I think I’ll not see anything like it again. I’m sure not one person who attended this year can contest that the conference was for and about New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Yes, there were sessions, there were committee meetings, there was vendor schwag, incredible food, and music. But behind the thin veneer of normalcy that seemed so desperately applied in anticipation of our attendance, there was the unmistakable hurt. There was injury in the hospitality, deep wounds that were betrayed by an endearing and truly genuine gratitude that I may never see again.

Leslie Burger, along with the Darien Public Library (CT) hosted a blogger bash on Saturday night at her suite in the New Orleans Hilton. But it wasn’t just a blogger’s bash, Leslie and Alan Gray (Darien) came up with the inspired idea to couple a blogger get-together with some folks from various Gulf Coast libraries. We heard from a number of them as they recounted the damage to their facilities and collections. But their problems extend beyond just physical damage. They have lost staff, lost revenue, but most of all, they have been presented with, as one director put it, “the biggest event” in their lifetimes–and most certainly their biggest challenge.

I would be remiss to not pass on their message of “send money, not books.” A number of New Orleans and Gulf Coast libraries have been inundated by used books from well-meaning people, but at this point, they have become a liability and simply pose more of a logistical problem because they cannot be used or processed. One library actually built a symbolic levy with all the books it has received. There are a number of ways to donate money to these (and many other) libraries–a simple Google search for “Katrina library donation” is a good start. You can donate directly to many of these libraries and you’ll know that every penny is being used to get them back up and running with the sole aim of serving their communities.

And speaking of community, Leslie Burger announced at her inaugural banquet that her theme, if you will, is libraries transform communities. A fitting message for her anointment and well to be delivered in such a host city. Leslie gave a firm nod to technology in her “five part plan” and the role it can play in drawing our communities together around the library. To my chagrin, I failed to bring even pen and paper to jot down some notes about her remarks. If I were to distill what I think about Leslie Burger, however, it would be that she is the perfect person for the job at the perfect time. I think she’ll leave the office of ALA president after having made some fundamental and profound changes. Thanks (again) to Darien for inviting me to the event, which was hopping, indeed, with a multi-generational flurry of Mo-town twist and zydeco.

I truly think that the locals were pleasantly surprised as the stereotype of the quiet librarian slipped away this past week. Mayor Nagin remarked on Saturday, librarians may “do it by the book,” as one printed t-shirt exclaimed, but some of us were not averse to sipping more than a few portable daiquiris in the French quarter!

Thanks also to the folks at Library Journal who put on a fabulous reception/luncheon for the Movers and Shakers. They tapped John Wood, a Microsoft exec who left an extremely lucrative career to build libraries for villages in third world countries. His talk was inspiring indeed, and reminded me of the importance of libraries, even in our own communities. Perhaps we are taken for granted when we’re around every day, but as John Wood, and the Gulf Coast librarians, show us, when we’re not around, our people lose an important mooring–libraries are so very essential to the health of community life. After Katrina, many people turned to libraries in their host communities to get information about their homes and to connect with their families and loved ones. If it were not for the libraries, where would those people have gone? John’s book, an account of his work getting Room to Read up and running, is called “Leaving Microsoft to Change the World” and is due out soon.

And so, above everything else, ALA New Orleans was about being reminded of why we do what we do. I’m slipping through the jet-stream right now, on my way home to an unbroken house and my beautiful family, so I want to acknowledge the many people who played host to the largest conference since Katrina. Every night, they return home to an entirely different situation than the one I’m on my way to right now. The residents of New Orleans may very well never forget the deluge. The painful memories will certainly outlast the stain of the high-water mark, but the decision not to move the 2006 conference will always be a jewel in the history of librarianship.

An interesting week, this was, in the blogosphere as it pertained to vendors, ILSs and OPACs. I’m not sure if the moon is crossing some strange celestial tract or if library bloggers are particularly sensitive to sunspots lately, but a number of people have been putting the screws to their vendors (III, in particular) and a righteous smack-down on their OPACs. At any rate, I’ve received a lot of linkage to the “ILS Customer Bill of Rights“, including some criticism. Enough so that I feel the need to gather these into some sort of usable nebulae…

Vendor’s in the hot-seat

June 1 - Touched a Nerve - An account by Nicole Engard of a run-in with some III folks at IUG (Innovative Users Group meeting). Her post seems to be the one that kicked off this particular vendor roast. Essentially, She mentions an incident at this year’s Denver IUG in which a III employee expressed displeasure at her post, State of the ILS. I agree with Nicole that it’s probably a good thing that III employees are a little upset with some of these assessments. I’ll also stand by my comments on Nicole’s post–I’m among the first to admit that III can be infuriating to work with and I would not recommend it to any library interested in doing heavy customization. I’d caution all parties, however, to address the problems and not their emotions associated with this hot potato.

June 14 - Attention Innovative: Get a Clue(train)! - Michael Stephens weighs in, responds to Nicole.

June 14 - Squashing Criticism vs. Improving Products - Casey Bisson reacts to Nicole’s Post and follows up on his previous post, The ILS Brick Wall. I didn’t read Nicole’s June 1 post the same way as Casey–that is to say that I don’t see any indication that III was squashing criticism directed at them. They may be upset, but that doesn’t, in my mind, seem to indicate that III was trying to silence anyone. I mention this because if we (mis)interperate what III does or says and take it at anything but face-value, we run the risk of alienating them which is not at all productive. I have a suspicion that they’re already starting to feel a little like the family stone. The very fact that someone at III is reading blogs like Nicole’s is actually heartening to me since there’s been little evidence to suggest they’re even aware of a librarian’s blogosphere.

June 16 - Empathy, But Not Sympathy for Innovative - Pegasus Librarian (not sure who this is), gathers a number of these posts together as well and recalls from IUG:

These users all wanted to be able to do stuff with the catalog… web 2.0 stuff, fun stuff, necessary stuff, stuff that should be do-able. And Dinah’s response was always the same. She’s been wanting to do all that, too, but there’s no time, and they aren’t allowed to fix stuff unless they’re actively supposed to be working on that module or code. Her refrain was (and I quote), “As we touch it, we can fix it.

To be blunt, I don’t care what’s going on inside Innovative. If I go to Burger King and get a raw hamburger, the last thing I want them to tell me is that they’re short-staffed and one of the grills is broken. In fact, reports like this make me more cognizant of the fact that Innovative’s house is is complete disarray. Half-a-million dollars should get us more than a dysfunctional family. Hearing something like this just makes me angry.

OPAC under fire

Sometime last week - What if Amazon sucked like our OPAC - a la David Walker - You just have to see it if you haven’t yet.

June 13 - Is the Writing on the Wall for the Integrated Library System? - OhioLINK’s Peter Murray muses on the future of the ILS and the OPAC. This is a good post that I’d recommend, even though I disagree with some of it. Murray has drawn from the newly formed Next Generation OPACs mailing list to discuss the relevancy of the OPAC in today’s library. He believes that the OPAC is barely utilized–I suppose he believes that to be the case in most libraries. He also seems to suggest that the “ILS/OPAC” (Which I take to mean the ILS with OPAC) should be considered an asset management system. In a way he’s correct, but fundamentally, the ILS is much more than that. The ILS is a suite of applications that, hopefully, facilitate everything from the art of cataloging (not inventorying) to finding material and information. I also do not see any evidence to support his claim that patrons do not use the OPAC. He writes, “I would challenge the notion that the OPAC is a ‘useful tool’ — if it was, our patrons would still be using it. As it is, anecdotal evidence suggest that the OPAC is the last thing they would choose to use.” We’ve got logs that prove that the OPAC is used heavily in our organization–it always has been. Perhaps the situation is different in academia where databases rule the roost, but the OPAC is the primary search tool for the public library patron, both in our buildings and from home. In many ways, the OPAC represents our double-doors–if there were no OPAC, we could not conduct business, and it’s very much alive. Where I do agree with him is in his remarks about libraries getting themselves in to trouble, though it’s not because we listened to ourselves as he suggests, but because there has never been a change-agent-inducing catalyst to light a fire under our collective behinds. In fact, the libraries who have been successful at transitioning into this “2.0 era” have largely been lucky in that they simply were in possession of the right people at the right time. The combination of vision, passion, and expertise is what makes a 600,000-ton tanker full of institutional inertia change course–not software suites.

June 14 - Are we really ready to say goodbye to the Sucky OPAC - Jennifer over at Life as We know It asks whether, in general, libraries are ready to chuck their existing OPACs and slide in shiny new replacements. Her concern is that we’re just not ready for a step like this. She makes a good point–one that I’d say is very valid considering the state of technology in many libraries. I’ve been contacted a number of times by individuals at other libraries who want to do what AADL has done with Drupal. I explain that Drupal is not the answer–it was a means to an end for us–so when they ask, “Ok, now I just need to get a copy of Drupal, install Linux somewhere and learn PHP?”, I try to make it clear that there is also an ocean of experience to cross because the answer is not in a book, nor is it in any particular software product. I hate to bring bad news to bear with some folks, but in many cases, libraries are just not ready yet.

The issue at hand here is really about redefining purpose within the library and staffing your technology department with passionate creators–employees who are extremely knowledgeable, technically, and driven to pursue a vision. Essentially, we need to be grokking the entire Library 2.0 meme. Pragmatically, if you look at the alternative, you’ve got a situation that does not diverge, at all, from the present vendor-centric model. Say, for the sake of argument, that NCSU’s Endeca model becomes the next gold standard as far as OPACs are concerned. Average, across-the-board OPAC quality may very well benefit in the short term, but you still have not addressed the fact that as libraries, we cannot shape the systems into new and unique forms. Turn-key implementation comes at the cost of innovation and ingenuity at the micro level which, in today’s world, can have a profound influence over the macro level. In other words, we shrink the pool of potential innovators by an order of magnitude and continue to forfeit control over our collective institutional destiny.

I’m glad Jennefer turns the argument back on ourselves because we are, after all, the other side of this equation. Every day we have another chance to address the technology deficit in our libraries and we can either choose to or not. Last week, I spent two days at the Darien Public Library in Darien Connecticut–a library full of people with vision, passion, and courage. I’m convinced that they’ll be able to do anything they want, simply because of their drive to get there and their willingness to make radical change. At any rate, I was having dinner with Alan Gray and he made a fabulous comment. He said, “power is 20% given and 80% taken.” I couldn’t agree more. I’d like to see libraries take a firmer hand in letting vendors know what we need, not just want from them. We need to take our 80 and stop giving them their 20.

But there is work to be done before we can do that.

A “Bill of Rights” questioned

June 15 - The Problem with the ILS Bill of Rights - Daniel Chudnov’s (Dchud) takes on my manifesto. There’s quite a bit here so I suggest reading his post. Drawing directly from my “ILS Customer’s Bill-of-Rights”, Dan makes the case that we do not need a Bill-of-Rights (the Rights). Aside from the fact that I believe his arguments never intersect with my original intent for the Rights, there are several problems with the points he makes. There are also several very good points. Dan’s main argument is that, as libraries and customers, we don’t have to sign a contract for something we don’t want. Ultimately, he’s right, but there is a difficult and very involved transitional period between the world he’s talking about and the one we live in now.

Libraries are like anyone else buying something–they need to be educated buyers. Until libraries can make truly informed decisions about the systems they purchase, we need discussion like the constellation of posts I’m outlining here as well as touchstones like the Rights post I wrote last November. Also, Dan’s suggestion that libraries just not sign a contract they’re not happy with presupposes that there are better alternatives waiting in the wing. What choice have libraries had, really? Can you say with all honesty that libraries have been in much of a bargaining position. Yes, vendors want our money, but they are also the power-brokers in these transactions until we change that. Dan also mentions the Open Source route as an alternative and points to the State of Georgia as a case for consideration in his follow-up post. Well yes, the State of Georgia can consider a home-grown, OS-based solution because they have the resources to make it happen. For most libraries, however, there is a severe tech-deficit that makes them blind with terror at the prospect of maintaining multiple points of contact for their ILS. Libraries are fully aware that they have, for years, been getting fleeced by vendors. He also suggests lawsuits as a mechanism for change. Perhaps he’s right, but lawsuits are costly and have no guarantee of success and would leave libraries in the same position as a diner who sends back a plate of food–will there be something nasty in it when it comes back?

Focusing on contracts and lawsuits is not the answer here. Focusing on ourselves is–bettering ourselves to the point of technical excellence is a must when you’re talking about the David and Goliath standoff between us and them. It’s a showdown that’s inevitable, we just better not show up to the party with poor aim. That’s why the time-line between now and the the future Dan talks about needs to be filled, not just with changes on the vendor side, but within libraries as well. Infrastructure upgrades, organizational restructuring, strategic planning, intensive education, and vision building need to proceed in tandem with our efforts to lobby change from our vendors. Otherwise, we’ll just be demanding something we can’t handle yet and our vendors will know it.

I mentioned that Dan’s post doesn’t really intersect with the purpose of the “ILS Bill of Rights”. That’s because it’s intended to provide a set of standards by which we, as libraries, consider potential new systems. It’s not for the vendors, it’s for us. I never thought that someone at Innovative might read it and think, “Uh oh, they’re on to us!” I’m not presenting it for ratification by anyone, anywhere. It’s sole purpose is to educate and promote discussion, which it has done beautifully, this past week.

More follow-up on Dan’s post:

June 15 - Wait a minute: you mean the OPAC doesn’t suck? *We* suck? Colorado College’s Steve Lawson addresses Dchus’s post.

June 15 - It’s not that simple - We’re back to Nicole who also takes on Dchud’s post.

FYI: I’ll be speaking about this next Sunday, June 25 in New Orleans on a panel, aptly named, “Catalog Transformed”. Hope to see you there!

Word just came down that aadl.org has been honored by the ALA as “best website” for libraries with budgets of $6,000,000.00 or more. Kudos to all the fine people I’ve been blessed to work with–what a rewarding project!

We’ve got a lot in store for the rest of this year. In many ways, it feels like we’re just getting started. Time willing, we can continue to serve our community by rolling out the new and exciting features they deserve.

What do you get when you cross a handful of highly talented individuals, an exciting new library movement, ALA and blogs? Well, the Library 2.0 Innovation Boot Camp, of course!

I can’t tell you how impressed I am at this course and the people who have, obviously, dedicated a great deal of their time and effort to it.

But, what is it, exactly? Kathleen Gilroy writes:

We are using a new model for delivering this program that is very different from other e-learning programs you may have joined. In the traditional model you have a course management system where all of your activities take place. In the traditional model, all of the activities and your participation in the course is highly structured within this typically closed and proprietary system.

In this program you will be participating in a Learning Network. This Learning Network can be thought of as an online platform with a constantly changing structure built by distributed, autonomous, and largely self-interested peers. On this platform we will build this course collectively. We will all be using blogs and podcasts to create content. Links and tags will knit this content together. And search and RSS will make the content visible and navigable and help you stay on top of it all.

Having just participated in HigherEd BlogCon 2006, I’m beginning to build a stronger appreciation for this online format and exchange of ideas. I truly hope people take advantage of this “Boot Camp” because these opportunities don’t come along very often. This type of hands-on experience is exactly what library professionals need to become familiar and comfortable with L2 concepts. Short of visiting every library in the country (and beyond), this is the best way of getting these tools out from behind the glass and into the hands of willing staffers.

Also, Jenny Levine and Michael Stephens have put together a fantastic reading list for the course on Squidoo–an interesting Web 2.0 tool that creates topical ‘lenses’ to be shared, discussed, and built-upon in typical 2.0 fashion. Be sure to check it out. There’s a good blend of both old and new material in there. What I really like about using tools like Squidoo for a project like this is that I can very easily point others to it as a starting point for their journey 2.0.