We couldn’t have asked for a better group of people at the 2006 Library Camp, last Friday. Many of the attendees were from in-state, but several logged a good number of travel hours to get here. It was for those, especially, that I was nervous, hoping that the format would yield some discussion worthy of their troubles. It did, and I had a great time.

I apologize in advance that I’m leaving out a lot of (probably important) detail in this post. During the talks, I chose to put my laptop away and not take notes–I wanted to be as engaged as possible. My mind is not exactly clear at this moment, either. The time between then and now has consisted of Easter preparations, Easter itself and the wholesale carnage that ensues when a two, five, and seven year old are all in various stages of a candy binge.

Getting Started

Friday morning began with coffee and bagels (thank-you Talis!) and a short meeting to put together the agenda for the day. As an open space event, this meant that the attendees themselves were responsible for the day. As we went through introductions, I jotted down some of the topics people were throwing out which generally came in the form of specific ideas or reasons for attending:

• How to get buy-in for new ideas.
• Gaming in libraries.
• Integrating searches. (Don’t remember the specifics on this one)
• Personal digital asset management.
• How do we make it easier to find info/material?
• How can L2 make patrons happier?
• Disconnect between techies and non-techies (this is a big one)
• Web 2.0: where to go to now?
• If you build it, how do you get them to come?
• How to combine new technologies with the OPAC
• How do we make the OPAC better?
• How do we get the library out of the library?
• Which tools are other people using?
• Just attending to spy on us!
• How should libraries handle emerging technologies?
• Strategic planning? What should we be planning for?
• Alternative methods of circing material.
• Getting user feedback.
• How do we measure success?
• When explaining web 2.0, how do you answer “So what?”
• Just plain curious.

From the final schedule, you can get a general sense of which topics were hot. Feeling a little like a kid in a candy store after this exercise, I took part in the two “Bridging the Gap” sessions.

Bridging the Gap

The title “Bridging the Gap” hearkens back to a blog post of mine about some of the deep divisions between tech and non-tech staff in libraries. Priming this discussion took very little effort, because it seemed to be something that resonates strongly on both sides of the aisle. The group’s numbers favored the techies (and, as I sometimes find, the techie non-techies or non-techie techies) but the discussion did not turn into a gripe session, as I had feared it might, rather a very candid discussion about where problems exist in our organizations and how to address them. A number of people had some very good things to say here and the time quickly slipped by.

There is a level of miscommunication and mistrust that seems to have saturated the relationship between library and IT staff. Many veteran librarians feel threatened by technology because they are not as adept at incorporating it into their profession as their greener counterparts. This feeling is entirely understandable. In fact, one library’s approach was to ask existing managers if they were comfortable, willing, and able to facilitate the appropriation of emerging technologies. If they were not, then their position would be redefined. In other words, someone else would take their leadership position. While my initial reaction was to think this policy was harsh, I have to wonder whether protecting people’s egos is worth sacrificing innovation.

Another participant has put a great deal of thought and effort into making the IT staff/rest-of-the-library relationship work. (I think it was Sean Robinson, Information Technology Manager for Allen County Public Library in Fort Wayne, IN) His approach was to radically transform the IT department in such a way that customer service became the modus operandi. By instilling simple policies like, “answer the phone with a smile on your face” to broader, more radical attitudes, such as “always say yes“, he has been able to earn back a good measure of trust from his users. How did he find out what was bothering them? He sent out an anonymous survey via HR asking staff what they hated most about IT. Among answers like, “you never return my calls”, or “it takes you forever to fix my problem”, was a very interesting comment, “You guys have all the control”. Even though it makes perfect sense, I had never really thought about the fact that we could be perceived that way–it’s a completely valid observation. In many ways, IT departments do have “all the control”. It stands to reason, then, that finding ways to put control back in the hands of staff can help to alleviate the problem. The “always say yes” policy is part of that initiative. My feeling is that, instead of blindly saying “yes”, however, we can work together to achieve a shared vision. By improving communication, we can improve service through the combining of ideas, alternatives, and possibilities.

The second part of the discussion focused on technology and the patron. We talked a little about the OPAC here, knowing that another session was forthcoming on the very topic. The general feeling was that many of our OPACs simply do not return friendly results. One comment was made along the lines of, “patrons shouldn’t need to be a librarian to search the catalog”. I feel very strongly about this as well. A great example is the fact that most author searches require last-name first. Someone mentioned that they wanted Amazon or Google-type searches that would do spell-checking and suggest alternatives.

On the matter of getting technical expertise into libraries, Sean Robinson posed another good idea–that libraries “pay it forward”. In other words, if one library has the expertise to accomplish something, then they could help another library complete the same with with the expectation that the second library would, in turn, help out another. I thought this was an incredibly inspired notion, and completely doable! I’ll be the first to volunteer…

Low-hanging OPAC fruit

A discussion about OPACs doesn’t take long to turn into a vendor-roast. Admittedly, there was a little of that going on here–mostly for the usual reasons, all completely valid. From an academic standpoint, access to research databases is also in need of attention. My thought was that, technically, the two things hampering innovation the most at this point are 1) the lack of a meaningful API into our ILS and 2) no standards-based, dynamic index for our research databases. Given those two tools, we could completely transform our interfaces into something truly new and unique.

The problems with our OPACs can be split into form and function. The OPAC interface needs a major face-lift while search functionality and results leave a lot to be desired (relevancy ranking, anyone?)

Alan Gray (Darien Public Library) offered a number of great thoughts on approaching vendors, suggesting that many of the open-source tools now being developed could somehow be leveraged in such a way that vendors would have to take notice and react. The problem with open-source solutions, however, is that even though the software is free, implementation can be impossible for a library without much of a tech staff and support is almost non-existent.

On the subject of open-sourcing code: While I write much of my code modularly so that it can be reused by other people, most of the code behind AADL’s website is highly customized and cannot simply be dropped into place at another site. One of my goals is to get closer to the object model, so that the code can be reused. Much of the code written in libraries is highly site-specific and cannot be transplanted without a lot of work. Can we write code with portability in mind?

So what can we focus on now? Ryan Eby talked about the judicious use of iframes and javascript to embed dynamic content. Those have a number of drawbacks, however, and amount to “lipstick on the pig”. He used III’s screen file tokens as an example.

Many libraries would like to do a complete overhaul of their websites, like AADL, but are not able to due to technical or staffing constraints. Therefore, they fall back to shoe-horning new features in here and there at the expense of cohesiveness.

Web 2.0/Library 2.0 — What’s next?

I wasn’t sure what this discussion was going to do, or where it would go. I think someone started the discussion by simply throwing out, “so, what now?”

We talked a little about physical spaces and the way they shape the library experience. Alan Gray filled us in on some of the amazing things Darien Library is doing in their new building to foster a closer relationship with the patron. Apparently, they are installing reference “pods” where reference librarians can have one-on-one sessions with people. They’re also experimenting with some IP telephony products.

We heard from the folks at South Lyon who have been featured in both the New York Times and Library Journal for their use of the tablet PC. Hearing them talk, I couldn’t help being reminded that it’s not just the technology that transforms, but how it’s implemented and how committed we are to making it work.

I spoke a little bit about how we handle tech support here at AADL. I mentioned that we have an internal IRC server with a support channel and a web client for our help-desk folks. This allows them to field problems directly to a large number of technical staff.

We talked, quite frankly, about the term Library 2.0, and it seemed to me that most people present had very little problem with the name itself and simply wanted to talk about the ideas behind it. As one person said, “we need to call it something…” We also addressed the “change-or-die!” ideology. Basically, I don’t think libraries will wither away to nothing if we don’t take advantage of emerging technologies and opportunities (the key being opportunity). I do think, however, that we run the risk of missing the boat and relegating ourselves to a myopic role in our communities that will be difficult to break out of if we don’t take advantage of emerging trends–that includes popular culture. Someone else felt that perhaps we are making too much of this and that this kind of talk was part of a larger “culture of fear” that exists in America. It was mentioned that we need to continually reinvent ourselves, just like the business world does. Separating value from fad is difficult, but we shouldn’t ignore the trends.

We spoke a little bit about rising circulation, harnessing the long tail, setting up a Netflix model for patron holds, and a few other material-related topics, such as circulating laptops.

Many thanks to Les Orchard who bailed me out and did a quick intro to del.icio.us.

Wrap-up

Honestly, I wish the entire day had been filmed, or recorded, or both. I was struck by how fast time went by. Because virtually everyone in every discussion played an active role, a heck of a lot was accomplished. Unfortunately, it doesn’t lend itself to easy blogging because there were no slides, no prepared remarks and very little time to write. As we discussed at the end, the open spaces idea could translate very well to other locales, if you’re so inclined, I’d suggest one in your area.

links:
Library 2.0 Wiki -> Library Camp 2006
The unLibrarian
Les Orchard’s OPML notes (neat-o!)
Ryan Eby

Today begins the 2006 HigherEd BlogCon, “an online event focused on how new online communications technologies and social tools are changing Higher Education.” Looking at the schedule for this month-long event, I’m seeing a lot of very interesting topics by some great speakers, er, writers.

You’ll notice that April 10-14 is dedicated to “Library and Information Resources“. LJ Mover and Shaker, Meredith Farkas has gathered a fantastic group of people to present during this block–I just hope mine can keep up with some of the other great topics planned!

As a public library person, I’m looking forward to getting a taste of librarianship in higher education. I think, with much of the Library 2.0 discussion focusing primarily on public libraries, school libraries have been left out in the cold a bit. It’s important to include them in the discussion of new ideas and the overarching discussion.

I’ve never participated in a BlogCon before, so this is a first for me, but it’s apparent that a lot of work and planning has gone into making this succeed. The fact that there is no geographical barrier to attendance really intrigues me and I’m looking forward to seeing how it all plays out.

Be sure to subscribe to the HEBC feed (comment feed too) and participate! It is, after all, a conference.

Back in February, I participated in a SirsiDynix Institute round table with Steven Abram, Michael Stephens and Michael Casey. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, but I came away with the impression that we'd barely scratched the surface on a number of questions Steven asked. Time was limited and the format and venue just didn't accommodate everything that could have been said. That, of course, is one of the reasons why we have blogs: to follow-up and extend.

One of the questions posed to the panel was, where can Library 2.0 make a difference now? Where is the action?

I had mentioned four particular areas where I thought L2 could be a change agent: technology, policy, programming, physical spaces. It's important to note that these four areas of change are in no way inherently "library 2.0"--just a part of the conversation. I think it's also important for me to admit that beyond technology, I really cannot write with any authority about policy, programming, or physical spaces, but I can identify good elements in each and voice an my opinion as to what I believe is good practice in each realm.

It's difficult to have a conversation about what's new in librarianship these days without bumping into terms like RFID, blog, wiki, and IM. There's little doubt that technology is poised to play a defining role in the future of librarianship. The question is how, to what degree, and what will it look like? I certainly see perils--some of which have already manifested themselves, *cough* .. RFI .. *cough* D ... I think we run the risk of chasing our tails in a frenzied loop, driven by tech for tech's sake. Always remember that when considering new technology, be mindful of "the process"--your existing methods and how new technology will impact it. After all, we share a relationship with technology, we don't own it. If we're unrealistic about that relationship and where it's going to go, we run the risk of burning ourselves in a flash of limerent passion.

So, what is the good stuff? As always, my response is, "that depends". Lately I've been beating the OPAC drum because I believe it's a fundamental library tool that's being neglected and passed over for more interesting or hip technologies. I believe in the socialPAC--we'll see where that goes, though. Michael Stephens does an inordinate amount of work trying to get libraries to adopt blogging. We've realized some very positive returns from our blogging initiative at AADL. In less that a year, we've managed to accumulate a sizable archive of quality content that belongs to us and invites community involvement. The model works and it adds tremendous value to our organization.

APIs have become vogue and we're seeing both the term and the technology itself sink into the library vernacular--at least in the blogosphere among library techies. I think the fact that we've witnessed some real successes with technologies like mashups, metadata and microformat-based tools has given rise to a general acceptance that the API is a critical business tool. I'm keen to see what arises from projects like unAPI and OpenURL. The idea here is to get away from technology that no longer works well, or doesn't live up to today's computing standards.

I don't want to speak much on hardware, because that is a bit of a sticky wicket. The problem with hardware is that it's always there and I really don't believe that hardware provides as much ROI as the judicious use of software can. As long as you have the right hardware for the job and enough power to drive your applications, you're set. That's not to say that we shouldn't be experimenting and researching ways to use new hardware--we just need to be careful because hardware vendors often promise one thing while practicality demonstrates another--tablet PC, anyone?

I'm grateful to the administrators who toil over policy development. Well, I'm grateful to them when they produce policy that makes sense! I've always been of the opinion that if the majority of people ignore a particular policy, it's bad--I think there is a little bit of acknowledgement of that going on these days as we look around and see a number of institutions relaxing rules and taking the opportunity to foster environments that are more inviting and less punitive. AADL, for example, now allows patrons to enjoy a beverage anywhere in the library so long as it has a lid. The old stereotype of the cranky librarian shushing anyone who dares to converse above a whisper is slowly eroding. I'd like to see fines disappear--some libraries are adopting very lax fine policies. Fines do nothing but scare off potential users and disenfranchise those who have accrued a balance. Friendly phone calls ought to accompany invoices. Your facilities could have all the right components for an immersive library experience, but if the policies are suffocating, expect users to go elsewhere.

While we're at it, reconsidering organizational structure is not a bad idea. My guess is that a more Google-like approach to staffing in key areas may help foster innovation. In other words, libraries might benefit from flattening out the organization structure of its employees in areas where new ideas are being developed and tested. Staff members need to have a realistic sense that they can approach anyone else in the organization with ideas and proposals instead of scheming up ways of floating them through layers of bureaucracy with the fear that they may be trampling on someones toes. Bureaucracy is an innovation killer.

Good policy can also pave the way for radical transformation in programming. In addition to the regularly-scheduled programs like story times and computer classes, I'm continuously impressed with the quality of guest speakers and other events our community relations department puts together. Programming is such an important tool for reminding your community that the library is alive, full of hope and opportunity. Lately, with the addition of gaming juggernauts like AADL-GT, we're seeing an upsurge in the amount and quality of teen programming in libraries everywhere. Teen programming is tremendously vogue right now and is vital to the fiscal health of our libraries in the future. We ought to be hiring and encouraging the very best teen librarians we possibly can right now--they need to be courageous, energetic visionaries, much like our own Erin Hemlrich (who ought to be blogging!). Courageous, because aside from the perceived taboos that need to be broken in order to get teens excited about the library, getting teens excited is not easy--it takes guts to engage those hypercritical hormone-factories. Gaming programs have a huge potential for return, if done right. Eli Neiburger and Erin have put together a gaming initiative that would knock your head off if you saw it--it's so good that it actually impresses the kids who come to it. And come they do--well over a hundred participants often show up for events.

Programming is also receptive to the adaptation of new technologies. Creative and judicious use of streaming audio/video, VoIP, wifi, electronic signage, even our own existing databases can yield results that look highly produced and professional. Attention to detail and a mindset that demands quality will create a product that our users will respect, and in turn, they will feel respected by us. True, money plays into a lot of these programs, but not always, and not as much as one might expect by looking at the finished product--be wily and get it done right!

We've just successfully opened the new Pittsfield Branch Library--the latest addition to the AADL system. It's a beautiful library--my favorite so far. In addition to bright, airy, open stacks and a quiet reading room with a fire place that overlooks protected wetlands, it features a generous kids area replete with toys and game computers. Also, directly in the center of the building is an interactive Bernoulli machine exhibit--a joint venture between AADL and the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum. The exhibit allows visitors (mostly the children) to press a pneumatic button that launches balls up a 20 foot tube where they are shot out into a spiral funnel that winds the balls back down another tube into a collection chamber with a spinning disc that sends the balls careening over buttons that light up various panels. The balls then fall back into a pinball-like queue where they can be launched, once again. It's really quite impressive. I also think it was a courageous move to put it in there due to both it's size and the amount of activity that it garners. It's definitely a draw for the 2-8 year-old crowd!

The point here is that physical space plays a major role in defining both the mission and purpose of libraries. I'm glad to see that larger and larger areas are being devoted to youth and teens. Having those resources brings in the stay-at-home parents with their children and starts a process of acclimation that primes the pipeline with future (tax-paying) patrons. Clean, accessible and uncongested computer rooms are essential to providing connectivity to those who may not have it at home, or who may not even have a home (we ought to be thinking about programming for the homeless, as well). Book stores have coffee shops, libraries should too, with free wifi so that the Borders down the street doesn't steal our business.

Okay, so I've taken a few scribblings and turned them into a long-winded brain-dumpish post. What can I say, I love what I do, and I believe that libraries are an oasis. Like most everyone else, I think we can do better. If nothing else, "Library 2.0" reminds us that it's an exciting and challenging time to be a library.

[tags]library, libraries, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, SirsiDynix, OPAC, innovation, technology, policy[/tags]

I may not agree with everything Walt Crawford writes in the latest issue of Cites & Insights [pdf], but I can't argue that his points are not well reasoned and thoroughly documented. I came away from his article understanding (but still disagreeing) with his assertions. His latest article (a 26,000 word essay) aggregates almost all of the L2 discussion in the blabosphere (including mine). I'm of the mind to treat it as an audit of the current state of L2. In that context, I find it extremely useful (see his lengthy list of L2 definitions, for instance).

What you'll notice in the collection of L2 discussions he's put together are a number of contradictions, some conflict of interest, some proselytizing and a healthy dose of scattered thought. On the surface, Walt's presentation is mostly objective, but some of that objectivity is lost by the fact that the formal C&I venue draws a great deal of material from the much less formal blog format. Blogs traditionally tend to be sounding boards for ideas and suggestions. My own blog features both 'light' and 'heavy' content. Blogs are often times the arena in which concepts like Library 2.0 are shaped like clay before they are hardened into, say, whitepapers (which he also pulls from). As a result, one might come away from his article with the impression that all the L2 chatter constitutes a three-ring circus, which it is not.

On the other hand, it's clear to me that L2 has achieved enough critical mass that it garners such criticism. Some of that criticism has been useful to me because it serves to remind us that libraries are complex beasts and that there are no absolutes (something everyone should keep in mind). I doubt Walt meant it to happen, but I believe this latest issue of C&I has served to further legitimize Library 2.0.

No matter what your feelings on the subject are, Walt's latest article is a pretty important document.