Commentary from Carl Grant

Another facet of the “library bypass strategies”

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:29:00 +0000

I really appreciate when readers of this blog contact me about various postings. Especially when we have the chance to not only discuss posts via comments, but to also verbally connect and share thoughts about libraries. I recently had one of those conversations with Jean Costello, a library patron in Massachusetts and a reader of this blog. During our conversation, she pointed me towards a recent blog post of her own, entitled “Library bypass strategies” that echoed a different facet of the same thought I’ve been having a lot lately (and have briefly mentioned in another post of my own.

Jean’s concern was how libraries might get bypassed in the context of e-book supply strategies. I totally agree with the comments she makes in her post. What I see, that echoes her concern, is in the area of e-content and discovery products which are being offered to the library marketplace. Increasingly, these are offered as pre-packaged solutions with a discovery interface and with databases from a select number of organizations. But there are some real differences in the offerings and librarians need to be careful how they select and implement this technology.

Libraries must retain control over the selection of the content that is offered to their end users or else they have abandoned a core value-add of librarianship, i.e. the selection of the most authoritative, appropriate and authenticated information (in this case electronic resources) needed to answer a user’s information need. If, as a librarian, you cede this control to a third party organization, you’ve setup your library to be bypassed and ultimately replaced in the information value chain.

Some may ask, how is this any different than the book approval plans most libraries have participated in for years, where vendors put together recommendations of titles for a library to purchase? Those plans, designed over the last approximately 20 years, are built around the Library of Congress classification scheme and subject headings and a variety of other criteria by which titles are selected. With this model, Librarians had the ultimate say over acceptance or rejection of books supplied in response to the plans. However, e-content selected by your vendor, particularly if that vendor is owned by a content aggregator, come with an entire host of complications. You have to ask yourself if you really want to trust a vendor of content to be objective when it comes to managing or delivering content from their competitors. Will they take advantage of usage statistics when determining packages or pricing? Will they tweak ranking algorithms to ensure that their own content gets ranked higher or more prominently?

I think it is important, as a librarian, to understand these realities. If you want to provide your users with an assurance that what they’re searching has passed your selection criteria and that it is the best information to meet their needs, then you’ve just created some important criteria to be met when you select the discovery tool and e-content your library is going to use. These include:

1. Content-neutrality. Using a discovery tool that is tied to (or owned) by any one content provider is obviously increasing the probability that content from their major content competitors will not be available. Furthermore, content from companies owned by the parent company will likely be more heavily favored in the ranking/relevancy algorithms. This will likely be disguised as “since we own these databases, we can provide richer access”. I’d be cautious if I heard those phrases. The discovery tool you select and use should allow you to provide equal access to all content that is relevant to the end user, not just the content supplier who is providing it. One way to do this is to make sure the discovery tool that is used is from a source that has no vested interest in the content itself. Another way is to ensure you have the ability, indeed control, over the final ranking/relevancy algorithms.

2. Deep-search and/or metasearch support. If you believe that all content your users will ever need or want to search will be available solely through any discovery interface that is searching harvested metadata, then you need to know this is probably unrealistic.

There are two ways to avoid getting caught in this trap. One option is the ability to add in metasearching capabilities. Yes, we all know the limitations of metasearching – but the reality is that, if you believe like I do, that your job is to connect your users with the most appropriate, authoritative and authenticated information needed to answer their questions – not just the easiest information you can make available that might answer their question -- then you have to provide a way to search information that can’t be harvested, which depending on the topic, can be important information.

The other way to do this is the ability to deep-search, i.e., to connect to an API that will search remote databases. This technology typically offers faster and better searching as well as much better ranking and retrieval capabilities.

Either way, these are capabilities that many discovery interfaces don’t support. But they should, indeed they must, in order to support the value-add of librarianship on top of information.

3. The ability to load and search databases unique to your user’s information needs. If the above options don’t cover the content you need to provide access to, then you should have the option to add in a database of e-content locally to your harvested metadata. This might be a local digital repository or other e-content, but you should insist on this capability to ensure needed access through the discovery interface.

Any librarian who understands his or her user’s unique information needs will insist, just as librarians have for years in building other collections, that we must have a selection policy that will give us control over the e-content users will be able to utilize.

Watching librarians in action today, there are those ignoring these issues. They are selecting discovery tools that provide quick, pre-defined, pre-packaged content with a discovery interface that doesn’t really meet the deeper needs of their users or their profession. Once they've done this, they’ve reduced their library’s value-add in the information delivery chain and they’ve lost another valuable reason for maintaining their library’s relevance within the institution and handed it to those that believe good enough, is well, good enough.

To avoid this situation be careful in your choice of discovery tools and e-content. Be sure they support the value-add of librarianship. That way you, and your library, won’t become another facet in what Jean calls – “the library bypass strategies”.

"Who knows what the library means anymore?"

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:33:00 +0000

I was at the Educause conference last week in Denver and found it very interesting. While the conference attracts many CIO's a number of librarians also attend and, as a result, some interesting debates also result. One concerned the future of academic libraries and you'll find the presentation reported on here. It's an interesting conversation and I encourage you to read it and the comments that follow. For me, the most telling statement remains what Suzanne Thorin, dean of libraries at Syracuse University, closed with: "Who knows what the library means anymore?"

It's a telling question. I mentioned it in my previous post and I'll say again, it the one question I truly wish the profession would answer so that everyone could align behind and support the answer.

The OSSification of viewpoints.

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:32:00 +0000

I will admit that the recent stir over the release of SirsiDynix’s paper about open source software for libraries by Stephen Abram bothered me. Not because I thought either side in the debates (the responses were on Twitter and in various blogs) had presented their cases well. In fact, my concern was that we are EVEN still having these debates (as I mentioned when interviewed by Library Journal on the subject). Particularly at a time when we have so many, so much more important, issues to be focused on in the library profession.

What we saw unfurl in this debate was what I’ve titled “OSSified” viewpoints. Each side rehashes viewpoints about open source that have been expressed hundreds, if not thousands of times. One side shouts “FUD” and the other side shouts “anti-proprietary” and neither side, in my opinion, is adding anything new or valuable to the discussion. Yes, both sides have many valid points buried under their boxing glove approaches. No, neither side is presenting their view in a compelling, well-reasoned, logical fashion.

When I was in college, (yes, a long time ago) I was on the debate team for the university. On weekends, we’d travel across the country to engage in debates on a wide range of topics. Each topic required massive preparation. Research, statistics, quotes, all kinds of supporting information and not just for one side of the debate, but for BOTH sides of the debate. You never knew until you arrived, which side you would be taking – but you had to be prepared to debate either. The end result was that you learned a great deal about both the advantages and disadvantages of wide range of topics. You also learned, as we often do in life, that the world is not black and white, that depending on what is important to you as an individual, an organization or a profession, the right answer is frequently something in between.

So it is with open source and proprietary software. Both have advantages, both have disadvantages. Which of those apply to your situation depends on who you are and what organization you’re representing. But here is reality as far as I’m concerned – open source software represents a need and ability for organizations and professions to adapt services to end user needs and to do so very quickly. Particularly so in environments where the pace of change is accelerating with every day. However, It also carries with it the need to internally have, or externally pay for, technical staff to adapt the software to those needs. Proprietary software can and usually does offer complete, very functionally rich, systems that address wide market needs at reasonable costs and with limited technical staff on the part of the organization using it. An added bonus can be if the proprietary software is open platform (as are Ex Libris products), so that the proprietary package supports open source extensions which can be made in order to enhance services for users. This is a combination that brings some of the best of both approaches together.

However, let me point out the obvious and yet frequently forgotten key point in what I’ve just said. Because of the rate of change libraries are dealing with today, they need to adapt and implement quickly. Software development technologies, as with all technologies, have limitations. Open source and proprietary do represent two different approaches to development technologies. But what matters at the end of the day is to provide a total SOLUTION that works in meeting the needs of the users. Until such time as users can sit and completely configure software applications to do exactly and exclusively what they want to do – there will be room for both open source and proprietary software in this profession. Each has advantages. Each has disadvantages. Each offers different approaches to solving problems and providing a solution. If we become zealots for either point of view we are not serving our profession or users well. Becoming zealots means we will fight against the use of what the other offers and we will waste massive amounts of time reinventing things that already exist and work well (a point shared by Cliff Lynch in this debate). Libraries can’t afford this redundancy, particularly in the economic climate we’re currently in.

The profession of librarianship has more important things to do at the moment. Let’s devote the energy being wasted in this debate to defining and agreeing what librarianship will look like in five years. What will librarianship mean to end-users and what will our value-add to information be in that time frame? This would greatly help solve many of the funding problems we’re all fighting at the moment. Finally, let’s map out the plans and technology that are going to help us fulfill that vision. I’m sure if we do that, there will be plenty of new places for both OSS and proprietary software to make major contributions and in ways that will build on and support each other. That’s what we’re trying to do at Ex Libris and I would encourage a wider adoption of this approach across the profession rather than continuing boxing matches using old and outdated arguments that do nothing to advance the need to provide solutions to users.

We simply have more important things to do.

E-book technology is accelerating. Libraries understanding and use of this technology needs to keep pace

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:48:00 +0000

While I’ve been traveling much of the last month (I apologize for the lack of postings), much has been happening that is worthy of note in the area of e-book technologies.

Barnes and Noble introduced their new Nook e-book reader, a device bearing many similarities to the Amazon Kindle, but with some notable advances. These include a portion of the screen that will display color, the ability to lend books you’ve bought to friends, the ability to read entire books for free in a Barnes and Noble store using a wireless connection and last but certainly not least, support for MP3s, PDF’s and ePub and PDB files. These are all significant new advances and the device, which is to be available late this month (November) will further accelerate the adoption of e-books by readers.

Of equal importance is another announcement this week by Marvell and E Ink of a new agreement that “raises the technology bar. This is a total platform solution—including Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 3G modem, and power management. The Armada e-reader has the potential to deliver the first mass market product accessible and affordable to billions of consumers around the world." Speculation is that instead of the current $250 price for e-book readers, this new technology will bring the prices down into the $100 range.

The pace of technology advancement in the area of e-books is accelerating rapidly and as a result, it is going to change reading habits, methodologies, research and discovery of people. These are all places where librarianship should and can be playing a leading role. With that statement in mind, I’d encourage you to read the article in the October issue of American Libraries magazine entitled “E-readers in Action”. The article, which highlights the efforts of Penn State to use e-books raises many valid issues concerning the use of e-book technology in libraries. But after reading it, I would ask you to think about what could have been done differently in this case to have made this a more satisfactory experience both for the readers and the library? I personally see quite a few things I would have done differently. Before I put forth my ideas, I invite yours. Comment on this post and I’ll follow up with another post summarizing your ideas and sharing my ideas on what libraries need to be doing to successfully use this new technology.

The scalability of the open source business model in libraries...

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:21:00 +0000

I enjoy being part of the Library Gang 2.0 podcast series and this month we covered a topic that I felt particularly well suited to discuss, that of the scalability of the open source business model for libraries. Having worked over the years with some of the major open source software packages that libraries use (Index Data’s suite of products, FedoraCommons, DSpace and now Ex Libris’ Open Platform) as well as having founded and run a company that supported OSS for libraries, I truly have some real-world experience to share.

Those experiences have taught me that open source commercial (as opposed to pure community based) business models that succeed for library specific applications are nascent efforts. When they do succeed, they often share many similarities with proprietary software business models. On the other hand, many proprietary software business models are increasingly moving towards new collaborative models (for example, the Ex Libris Open Platform). All of which supports my long time contention that the future business models for both open source and propriety software is neither as we know them to exist today. As in any evolutionary process, the best features of both will blend together to result in a new model for the future.

The latest Library Gang 2.0 podcast examines some of the issues currently being wrestled with and also talks about the future of the ILS. Listen in, I think you’ll find it interesting.

The difference between Google and libraries

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:10:00 +0000

There is a new article in Wired that is a powerful reminder of what distinguishes libraries from Google. The author says :

Those "with long memories remember the last time Google assembled a giant library that promised to rescue orphaned content for future generations. And the tattered remnants of that online archive are a cautionary tale in what happens when Google simply loses interest".

It is a useful read, not so much for librarians who already understand the differences, but for librarians to point those that question their existence or funding.

The author says it best at the end, when he says:

Its a reminder that Google is an advertising company — not a modern-day Library of Alexandria.

Libraries have value and important roles to play in our society. Reminders like this are useful.

An interesting environmental scan on academic digital libraries

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:40:00 +0000

The “New Review of Academic Librarianship” has just published (and it’s available for free download for a limited time period) a really excellent article entitled Academic Digital Libraries of the Future: An Environment Scan .

The author, Derek Law from the Centre for Digital Library Research at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow Scotland laments “it is no longer clear what business libraries are in and whey they should now interface with other parts of the organizations they serve” and he further says that librarians “have lacked the space to step back and observe it from a higher level.”

The good news is that if they take the time to read this article, he’ll provoke their thinking and help clarify what must be dealt with in the larger environment. He cites numerous reports to show what many feel, even if they couldn’t quantify it – users perceptions of libraries are radically different than what librarians perceive them to be. He tapes the CIBER report to show that researches “expect research to be easy” and that they “do not seek help from librarians” and only want to “download materials at their desks.” One of the most disturbing disconnects is when he points out that “when librarians assist users, satisfaction levels drop” because it is perceived that aren’t trying to simply help them find what they need, but are trying to show them “what is good for them”.

The article deals with the growth in digital content but very accurately points out that librarians have yet to add value to the digital content they do accumulate. Yet all is not lost, because he identifies that being a trusted brand is something libraries and librarianship needs to build upon. He puts forth two really interesting tables in the article, showing first, how many of the social networking tools can replace traditional library activities and the second table suggests how libraries can use those very social networking tools to the benefit of library users (the article is worth downloading for these two tables alone!).

Finally, the article suggests key things that librarians need to do “be at the core of any redefinition of the Library’s role”. I won’t spoil the read for you but let me say that you should grab this article and read it. It’s time well spent.

“I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?” -- Benjamin Disraeli

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:54:00 +0000

After my last post about e-books and e-readers, I saw a flurry of other articles and posts about the future of books, print, digital content and libraries. It’ll be no surprise to my readers that the points of view ranged from one end of the spectrum to the other.

In particular, Cushing Academy made quite a stir when they went completely digital. James Tracy, headmaster of Cushing stated in a Boston Globe article:

"When I look at books, I see an outdated technology, like scrolls before books. This isn’t ‘Fahrenheit 451’ [the 1953 Ray Bradbury novel in which books are banned]. We’re not discouraging students from reading. We see this as a natural way to shape emerging trends and optimize technology."

This, of course, drew all kinds of spirited responses, including some from Keith Fiels, executive director of ALA. I’m afraid I found Mr. Fiels remarks somewhat uniformed. He first indicates that e-readers and books aren’t free. To which one must of course ask, since when are printed ones free? Of course, I understand that once purchased printed books can be used by many others for a fairly low cost, at least to the library (and thus the taxpayer). But his remark seems to indicate that he isn’t up-to-date on how some of the e-book manufacturers (Sony most notably) are working quite diligently to make e-readers and e-books work for libraries in much the same way. Mr Fiels goes on to note “it may become more difficult for students to happen on books with the serendipity made possible by physical browsing.” I would strongly suggest that Mr. Fiels spend some times with students and see how they browse collections today be it music, books, photos, videos or any other digital media, outside or inside of a library. It’s done VIRTUALLY. Of course Mr. Fiels wasn’t alone in expressing concern. Many other people reacted in similar (and different) ways.

However, the reality is that this is not the first time something of this nature has happened, nor will it be the last. Back in 2005, the University of Texas at Austin, under the leadership of Fred Heath made quite a stir when they announced that they were making one campus entirely digital. More recently, the University of Connecticut at Bridgeport did something similar when Diane Mirvis converted the first floor of their university library to a digital learning commons with no books in sight (which, I might add, uses PRIMO as the centerpiece of this new digital learning environment). There are probably countless other examples.

These conversions will continue as time marches forward. Slowly, but steadily they will go on until they are no longer noted because they’re no longer newsworthy. In fact, in reading all these links, the thing that struck me was that the users of the libraries find it all rather mundane. They’re expecting it and welcome it, saying simply “it’s the future”.

The point was further underscored for me this week, when a friend and colleague, Ian Dolphin, pointed me towards the Shared Services Feasibility Study by SCONUL. While interesting reading for a variety of reasons, in particular this survey of 83 higher education institutions in the United Kingdom, showed “the strongest focus is on adopting digital solutions and electronic content to reduce physical holdings and therefore space.”

Taken in totality, all of it reminded me of one of my favorite quotes by Benjamin Disraeli, a former British Prime Minister:

"I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?"

Which is my way of saying that I hope as librarians, we will allow ourselves to be lead by those who understand where people want to go.

e-books, e-book readers, but what about end-users?

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:41:00 +0000

Last week, I participated in a TALIS podcast on ebooks and ebook readers. You can find it here. It was an interesting conversation that featured many different perspectives, ranging from a librarian who is actively running an e-book program at a library, a person from Google (who discussed aspects of the Google book settlement) and other professionals representing other different technological backgrounds and experiences.

There is however, one concern I have when we gather industry people to discuss these topics. That is the fact that there is a important point-of-view missing or only slightly represented and that is the view of the end-users. While presumably, many of us on the podcast talk to end-users, directly or indirectly, and try to interpret what we believe they want, it's still an interpretation and a pale representation. For instance, I spend most of my time working with academic libraries and on academic campuses visiting academic libraries. It is not infrequent for me to hear (or read) reports that state many students use the library only as a meeting place, or a place to catch a nap and how little, if at all, they actually use the physical collection of the library (for a variety of reasons). They use digital resources, whether supplied through their library or not, but digital it must be. So, I try to represent that point of view in these forums as best I can. Yet, I think within the podcast parameters, I'm only able to represent a fragment of what I've heard from end-users.

For example, I've met more than a few students that have told me they expected to graduate without every having actually borrowed a single item from the library. Yet, I've seen these same students fully wired in that there are computers in their backpacks, iPods in their ears and mobile phones in their pockets -- all of which they read quite actively. So, reading is not the issue. We know that print will live on for a very long time in one form or another. Our printed library materials? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not at all sure students care.

Now perhaps digitizing these works will allow them to flow more actively into the environments where end-users appear to be spending more of their time and energy. That would be good. But that won't be enough. We, as librarians must also find ways to extend our value-add out there along with our library resources. That is something I think we need to seriously devote some active thought to in the very near term. More importantly, we need to hold some discussions with end-users so we make library services meaningful to them.

It's a frequent concern of mine when working with libraries, that libraries don't spend enough time talking to their end users about what it is their information needs are and how libraries might fill those needs. The most comprehensive description I've seen in the last decade was The OCLC Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition. Unfortunately, it is now six years old -- a lifetime when talking about the changes wrought by technology. I'm sure if this survey was updated today, we'd be very enlightened by what we would hear. Our profession needs to have these conversations more fequently, not less. Once taken, we need to listen and respond to the results. Reading the 2003 OCLC report, one is struck by how little progress we've actually made on the findings it reported. Six years later, our lives are complicated by a financial crisis. Library funding seems to be in critical condition. One has to wonder if the lack of funding could be tied to the lack of progress in meeting end-user needs? Had we done a better job there, would the financial situation be different today?

E-books, e-readers? They're here today and we're trying to grapple with the issues about what to do with them and how to use them in our libraries. Before we get too far down the path, I suggest we have some in-depth conversations with end-users.

Library Software Solutions - We need a higher level of discourse..

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:06:00 +0000

It seems to me, after a week or so of watching comments fly around on Twitter, Facebook, and on various blogs and press sites, that we need to raise the level of discourse between the vendors of proprietary software, those who produce open source software and the users of both, that is -- libraries. Why do I say that? As I'm sure many of you know the OLE group issued its draft final project report recently, along with a request to comment.

I took that opportunity to write a blog post conveying my concerns about where OLE was headed and how it was getting there. I posed a set of questions, based on my professional experiences, which includes proprietary only software companies, software companies with products based on both proprietary and open source and prior to Ex Libris, my own company that was focused almost exclusively on open source software. That blog post drew a pointed comment from Brad Wheeler, a participant in the OLE project.

Which caused me to stop and wonder; did the OLE group really want comments? Or just not comments from vendors of proprietary software?

If that is the case it is truly unfortunate for all of us. It reminds me of a book review in the Economist that I read this weekend. A statement in that review jumped out at me:

“They are so blinded by partisanship that they are incapable of seeing any vices in their own side or any virtues in their opponents….”

I thought about that for a moment and how broadly it applies to our lives today, from politics (conservative vs. liberal) through the media (FOX vs. CNN) and to computers (Windows vs. Mac). It seems we're increasingly turning into people who can only see black and white and little in between. Is that where we want the discourse between open source software and proprietary software solutions to reside? I sincerely hope not.

Surely we can agree on some things:

Proprietary software can co-exist with open source. For instance, I'm extremely proud of what Ex Libris has done in supporting open source software. While I understand those of the “pure open source” camp will still find things to criticize in what I'm about to say, the facts are that Ex Libris has:

Opened its software platforms to support open source extensions
Participated in standards meetings to support the DLF API initiatives.
Sent speakers and attendees to open source conferences around the world to both learn and present.
Encouraged community-based software development.
Strongly supported standards and standards organizations.
Provided financial support to the open source community via direct financial contributions to the OSS4LIB conferences.
Organized meetings for open source developers where Ex Libris developers participate to learn and share how our open platform can be utilized to further support open source development.

“For-profit” is not bad. This is a cornerstone of our economy and our society. While I note a trend in many open source and even general library conversations that equate the words “for-profit” with “greed” and “bad”, the reality is that this is a diversionary tactic and serves no real purpose.

Many universities and educators benefit directly from “for-profit” companies via their endowments and pension funds, both of which invest in, and hope for a good return via, these kinds of investments. (It reminds me of those that say they don't want government health care, but don't you dare touch my Medicare!)

The reality is that good and successful companies listen to their customers, supply products/services that those customers need and will buy or else -– pure and simple -- they go out of business.

Pricing of those products is always a discussion point and likely will continue to be. I remember what one company president I worked for said when asked how he arrived at a product price? His answer was “somewhere between what it costs to produce and what the market will bear”. If anyone thinks that libraries could previously, or can now, bear high profit margins; please tell me how to transport to your world. It's not one I've lived in for the last several decades.

I've noted studies that said the cost of open source products and proprietary products usually turn out to be equal when all aspects of their production and implementation are factored into the equation. I've heard vendors of open source solutions say the same thing. When it comes to cost, it's just a difference of where the money will be spent.
Competition is good. Let me be clear. We welcome OLE in the marketplace. As I said in my original post, we see much merit in this project. The OLE work will make for better solutions, across the board. Yes, it's a different model of producing software than ours, but it doesn't make our model wrong and it doesn't make the open source software model right. The two methods are just different, each has has advantages and disadvantages that should be weighed by customers to find the one that best suits their specific needs. I agree, it's a big market. There will be alternatives. We'll each represent what we see as the advantages of our solution. Let's agree to let the customers decide.
Responsibility belongs to all of us. The current situation of libraries is no more the fault of proprietary software vendors than it is of librarians or any other single player. It's a complex world with many factors at play.

Open source software organizations understand, as do proprietary firms, that ultimately libraries will determine their own fate. Their willingness to define a compelling vision of their role in the future is the key to their survival. (See my post about The future of research libraries and/or Libraries; A silence that is deafening. As software developers we offer a variety of tools and solutions to meet that vision.

I think we'd be best served by allowing libraries to focus on the larger issues at hand. We can all do that through intelligent exchanges with clear statements of advantages and benefits.
Discourse is important. We at Ex Libris have learned a lot from the open source software movement. There is much we admire in this movement and have moved to incorporate into our products and initiatives in order to benefit our customers. If it benefits our customers, we understand that it benefit us as well.

I wrote my OLE post because I thought it was an important topic and I wanted to share my experience, my view, and what input I could give the group to use in the project and those that wish to use the resulting product. It was never meant as a set of statements meant to foster fear, uncertainty or doubt. If we are wrong in our approach, then I would encourage discourse that helps us to understand why. If we're right (and let's recognize that companies like ours have been producing software for decades for this marketplace so surely we know a few things that would benefit the OSS developers) then perhaps our thoughts can be accepted as constructive input.

Given the quality, quantity and intelligence of the people involved in these discussions, I think it is time to raise this dialogue to a higher level.

The Future of Research Libraries

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:30:00 +0000

This weekend I read a book-in-progress about the future of research libraries, called "The Great Library In The Sky". The fact that it is a book-in-progress is an interesting idea all by itself that the author discusses in the introduction. Of course, the most interesting part is the book itself. The title of the first chapter is "Time to Say Goodbye" and it open with the statement that "Academic Libraries are confronting a death spiral." The work is an in-depth look at the challenges and problems posed to academic libraries by information competitors and disruptive technologies. It challenges the thinking of today's academic librarians while offering possibilities for remaining relevant into the future. Let's just say that it will not be by doing what has always been done.

As noted, it is a work-in-progress. The version I read is Version 0.6 and admittedly some chapters are a bit choppy yet. However, even in this form, it should be made mandatory reading in every graduate library science program. Also, any academic librarian wanting to see a pathway forward that isn't centered on cutting services and collections would be well served to read this book right now.

The author, Adam Corson-Finnerty is the Director of Special Initiatives for the University of Pennsylvania Libraries. That institution is indeed fortunate to have someone like this on their team. Libraries need more people like this. He also writes a blog where clearly many of the ideas in this book started out. Excellent reading, both the blog and the book. Check them out.

Importance of content and vendor neutrality in software solutions--what will libraries choose?

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:39:00 +0000

Today, our technology tool sets include Web-services, cloud computing, SaaS, grid computing, mobile devices, etc.—all of which have made possible a whole new way of thinking about library systems/services. As an aggregate, they also raise some new issues that will cause libraries to rethink topics like data privacy, conflicts of interest, and market dynamics, in a way that has never been of previous concern.

There are several efforts underway including, Ex Libris URM, OLE, and OCLC WorldCAT that have outlined plans for next generation systems/services that utilize at least some, if not all, of these technologies. With these new technologies come all kinds of new questions and interesting topics for consideration, many that highlight some of the complex decisions that libraries will be making in the next few years. Coming hard on the heels of some record usage policy debates, the inevitable questions arise regarding what might happen to an even bigger body of data resident, in for instance, a new OCLC-hosted ILS system? Will these force librarians to again think long and hard about data privacy and record ownership issues? Will putting the entire patron, usage and budget data resident in today’s library ILS, in the hands of a vendor that also licenses and prices content and has third party relationships with publishers and content providers, raise some concerns? Not just among librarians, but the libraries and larger institutions/organizations that they serve?

A similar tangle arises when a single vendor controls all of the pieces of a solution such as the discovery interface, database(s) and their access; and electronic resource management. Companies like these offer services that allow a library to license, record, discover, and access intellectual content all on a single vendor-hosted platform. The convenience and cost factors are highly touted; as all services are provided courtesy of new technologies unknown just a few years ago. It all sounds too easy and it is-–especially if libraries don’t stop to consider the implications. For example, should a library be concerned about the privacy and exclusive usage of all of its data? If a vendor produces original content, offers access to a database via a hosted service, provides discovery of its own databases, houses usage and cost data and license terms of both its own content, and other vendors’ content, have we crossed a line that should be of concern not only to libraries, but also to other content publishers? It would seem to me that we should all be very concerned. When one solution provider suddenly has control over all facets of the solution you’re using, and significant parts of the competitor’s solutions, you, as the end customer, have lost substantial negotiation power. Firms that compete with these suppliers are also handicapped in that they’ve handed key critical usage information on their products to their very competitors. This information could be used by the solution vendor to modify pricing and packaging choices in ways that won’t be favorable to the library.

The OLE and Ex Libris URM projects continue to sustain the vendor and content neutrality that has been a hallmark of traditional library software, updated to use newer technology. It will be fascinating to see what values libraries choose to prioritize. Will it be perceived low cost and convenience or will it be content and vendor neutrality, i.e. the ability to negotiate low prices coupled with the traditional need to protect privileged data that will continue to weigh heavily into their future decisions? It's an important decision.

He's back!

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:18:00 +0000

Nicholson Baker has a long track record when it comes to libraries, books and technology. Among those of us who make our living in the technology sector of the library world, Mr. Baker isn’t always considered very forward thinking. Back in 1994 he did an article in the New Yorker magazine talking about how various libraries, including the New York Public Library, Harvard, and others, had discarded their index card files and replaced them with “inferior” on-line systems. In 2001, he wrote a book called “Double Fold” that was very critical of libraries and their handling of original works and their replacement with newer types of surrogates. Now, in the latest issue of New Yorker, he takes on the Amazon Kindle 2 in an article entitled: “A new page”. It’s an entertaining article, certainly. Not surprisingly, it is also a pretty skeptical look at the Kindle as he relates what he views as good and bad about the technology behind e-books and e-book readers. If one checks the web, various sites are already dealing with his article and those sites are building an impressive array of comments. Again, the comments are entertaining and informative and they represent all sides of this very passionate discussion.

As informative and entertaining as these discussions are, as a user of e-books and an e-book reader, many times I find some points of view glaringly missing. These include: Given the quantum leaps each generation of this technology makes, where might it go? What might we do with it? What will it mean for librarianship?

As a starting point, consider the technological leaps made by the iPod, which launched in October 2001. We’ve seen new versions and models virtually every year since, each offering major new features and technology. As a result these devices have become prolific. According to Wikipedia, over 200M iPods of one variety or another have been sold since their introduction. The number keeps growing.

Now, consider the most popular e-book reader, the Kindle. The first one was introduced in November 2007 and today, almost two years later, we’ve seen two additional new versions – each offering substantial new feature sets. It is estimated that 500,000 have been sold thus far and by 2010 it is projected that over 3M will have been sold. I have no doubt, many of the issues/concerns we hear today, from people like Baker, will be taken as input by the various manufacturers and will be used to rapidly improve their products.

When talking to librarians about these devices, I frequently encounter the point of view that “It’ll never replace books” or “The book is a perfect technology – widely usable, no power needs, it feels and smells good,” etc., etc. However, I think this is a black and white view. It is also a denial of the inevitable. I read somewhere that paper is a technology and like all technologies it too will have an end-of-life. Until that day is fully realized, as librarians we should look at these devices and ask ourselves the following questions:

If I can have a book/magazine/newspaper delivered wirelessly to the device in my hand in less than 60 seconds and for a reasonable charge, why should we expect users to go to the library or use inter-library loan?
If I check out a book at the library, can I plug a headset into it and have the book automatically read to me?
If I’m reading a book from the library, can I instantly change the font size of that book to one more comfortable for my tired eyes?
Can I keyword search the book in my hand, and every other e-book I own, all at the same time, with one simple search?
Can I carry 1,500 books in the same space as one printed book normally takes?

I don’t intend to start a long point-by-point comparison of libraries and library books to e-book readers and e-books. Each has its attributes and it would be taking up the black-and-white view of the world to go down that path. Instead we should realize this new technology offers some very interesting new value-add capabilities that libraries and library books don’t. What are others seeing as the impact? (highlighting below is my own):

“New e-readers are leading the way to a future in which your local library is the solid-state drive in your hand” (Candice Chan, Wired Magazine, May 2009).

Steven Johnson in the Wall Street Journal of April 20, 2009, in an article entitled, "How the e-book will change the way we read and write", made some very interesting observations. If you haven’t read this article, I highly recommend it. It does offer you a view of the future of this technology:

“It will make it easier for us to buy books, but at the same time, make it easier to stop reading them.”
“Print books have remained a kind of game preserve for the endangered species of linear, deep-focus reading.”
“2009 may well prove to be the most significant year in the evolution of the books since Gutenberg …”
“Think about it. Before too long, you’ll be able to create a kind of shadow version of your entire library, including every book you’ve ever read – as a child, as a teenager, as a college student, as an adult. Every word in that library will be searchable. It is hard to overstate the impact that this kind of shift will have on scholarship. Entirely new forms of discovery will be possible. Imagine a software tool that scans through the bibliographies of the 20 books you’ve read on a topic, and comes up with the most cited work in those bibliographies that you haven’t encountered yet.”
“Reading books will become … a community event, with every paragraph a launching pad for a conversation with strangers around the world.”
“The unity of the book will disperse..”

All of this should cause one to stop and think. The worlds of publishing and research will see transformation as a result of e-books. Librarianship will be able to move in new directions and address new opportunities. New software will be needed on these platforms that will replicate the some of the value add skills of libraries and librarianship but in this different environment. (Note in these articles, they say the library will be in your e-reader, not the value-add of librarianship. We should make sure it is is also on the e-reader.) At the same time, this new technology raises countless concerns for the profession if we fail to embrace it.

Nicholson Baker will be back again and again, every time he sees a new threat to traditional librarianship and new forms of information consumption that he feels threaten traditional printed books. Obviously, as a librarian I think we need to embrace this new e-book technology and to ensure that we develop and put into place ways to work with and offer librarian services within it. This evolution in technology presages new dimensions in information consumption and utilization. As a result, librarians will have some new tools in their toolbox and others we need to develop. If you want to see how some of your peers are working with this new technology, check out this blog entry. If you haven’t started, maybe it’s time? While Nicholson Baker will be back, I'd like to make sure librarianship never goes away.

(As an intersting follow up, read this post title: "Ebook growth explosive; serious disruptions around the corner" which talks about the growth rates in ebook sales, putting some numbers on it and also talks specifically about library sales of ebooks.)

OLE; The unanswered questions

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:08:00 +0000

After returning from a vacation following ALA, I read the summary of the recently issued draft Final OLE Project Report. While there is much to be admired in what the OLE project has achieved, it is also important to note that OLE is neither the first organization to define these goals nor does OLE represent major unique or innovative technology. Furthermore, it leaves some important questions unanswered that anyone thinking about investing in this project should demand answers for first.

Robert McDonald, Associate Dean for Library Technologies at Indiana University, said in an email about the project:

"The goal is to produce a design document to inform open source library system development efforts, to guide future library system implementations, and to influence current Integrated Library System vendor products."

If you read the Project goals outlined in the document, you'll find it states similar goals:

“to design a next-generation library system that breaks away from print-based workflows, reflects the changing nature of library materials and new approaches to scholarly work, integrates well with other enterprise systems and can be easily modified to suit the needs of different institutions.”

These are all important and readily agreed upon goals. In fact, nearly two years ago, Ex Libris started to define a very similar set of goals, although much broader, more comprehensive and technologically more advanced. This process was the beginning of what was to become known as Unified Resource Management (URM).

The next steps, according to the OLE document are to start

“talking with senior administrators, both internal and external to OLE, to identify those institutions that wish to develop a proposal to carry the project forward into the next phase of building the software. OLE participants also have begun discussions with selected software vendors to explore how they might participate either in software development or software hosting and support as the project continues.”

This statement seems to be a bit at odds with the goals outlined and discussed above. If the goals are to influence and guide current ILS development and/or inform OSS development efforts, then developing the appropriate software is indeed a very large step in a different direction, and it skips an equally important step. So what’s missing? Creating the business model that surrounds this development effort. This is no small task, but it is a critically important one. If the OLE project were a new startup investment opportunity, investors would want assurances that the money being invested would result in a product/service that will provide a measurable return, year after year for a reasonable amount of time.

To do that, the business model would need to answer some very tough questions:

What is the target market for this product? In reading the document as currently drafted, one finds a high-level description (framework) that will appeal to most librarians conceptually. It is clear from the document that the goal is to have a very wide adoption rate for the resulting product. However, it is missing the functional details needed for any specific library to be able to clearly say this product will work for them. Now if the point of the effort is to guide and inform, the document as it exists is fine. But if it is meant to result in a final product, it needs to be considerably more specific. This is where involving vendors that have developed products for the library market will be very important. Vendors that have developed automation products for this market will undoubtedly point out that the devil is in the details. Research libraries are different from academic libraries are different from public libraries, are different from… you know what I’m saying. Each of those segments requires different functionality and workflows. It is stated in the OLE Plan that the ability to accommodate flexible and more modern workflows will be met with the ensuing product. What is not clearly stated is that putting those pieces in place will be left to the institutions that adopt the product. For those institutions, factoring the time, money and resources to add that specific functionality will need to be factored into their cost considerations for adopting this as a development project/product.
Who are the competitors? Clearly there are already competitive products emerging. Ex Libris is developing URM (as mentioned above) its next generation automation product. OCLC is discussing and developing extensions to WorldCAT. Others are also working towards similar goals as outlined in the draft Final OLE Project Report. A comprehensive list should, to the degree possible, be identified and listed so that potential partners understand the competitive landscape being faced by this product.
How much of the market do the organizations above have or are they going to take? How much is OLE hoping to take? Once the competitive solutions are identified, some projections of market share should be developed for all the identified products. Why? Because it needs to be understood that if you have a potential market of “x” libraries (just for discussion sake, let’s say 120 ARL institutions) and OLE is going to hope to obtain a market share of 20%, then the total potential pool of possible participating institutions is 24. So when final costs are developed to fully develop this product, place it into production and maintain it are calculated, the 24 institutions must bear those costs. (For example, if the projection is that it will take 5.2M to build the product, and let’s say it takes another 5M to complete the development needed to put the project in production status by build partners, plus an annual recurring cost of minimally two programmers per institution, at a total of 150K, we’re looking at an annualized cost of nearly $500K per institution before deducting any grant funding the project might obtain). These are big and important numbers that need to be known by any institution that might wish to participate in either the development or adoption of this product.
How many institutions are actually going to put OLE into production status? (Remember, we’re talking an “enterprise” level application here, so institutions have to be willing to bet the future of their organizations on the final result). There are many open source projects in libraries today. Some run in test/development modes for years with no clear date identified as to when it will be a “production” product. While it is equally true there are many OSS products that are in production status, without knowing when a product will be "done" and for how long money must be poured into the development, developing a business case that shows a useful time frame for a return on investment is extremely difficult.
How much money are those institutions going to have to put behind that adoption in order to make it an enterprise, production ready, level product? While these will be projections at best, it is important to factor the answers to these questions into the business model, normally at several different levels of adoption, for the institutions considering the solution to have a comprehensive understanding of how costs might change depending on what happens.
How will that product sustain itself for some defined amount of time (usually 5-10 years)? The current draft Final Report begins to outline the plan for achieving this, but again, a range of numbers need to be applied for a realistic assessment to be performed (i.e if only 50 adopt it’ll cost “x”, if 1000 adopt it’ll cost “y”).
What are the risks? Risk identification is an important part of making any investment. Some of the risks that surround OLE include:

Given the scope of what is being proposed and the competitive environment in which the product will exist, can this product develop a large enough following of developers to sustain it in each market segment in which it aspires to compete? The reality is that the library market is one of relatively finite size and given the current economic conditions, the number of institutions that can afford to sustain a staff of developers is shrinking. Given all the other OSS efforts underway, is there a large enough community that will be willing to devote time, energy and resources to this product?
The investment represented both by those institutions that will be build partners and those that will end up tailoring the product to meet their needs is very large. A lot of the money to be applied here might come from the Mellon Foundation, a terrific organization that has done more for libraries than can be measured. Yet, someone needs to ask: Is this the best use of that money? Especially when there are clearly competitive products emerging, many of which come from organizations with proven track records in developing this kind of technology. What is the probability of success for this startup effort? What if it fails?
The real point here is that risks need to be identified, measured and factored into the investment analysis.

Once gathered, all these answers will need to be loaded into some complex business modeling spreadsheets in order to make projections about what the actual cost will be, per institution, to create and sustain the development of OLE. Given the current economic crisis in both education and libraries, these costs will need to be carefully documented, scrutinized, and compared to other offerings in order to make informed, fiscally sound decisions.

This is tedious stuff. The answers to these questions will probably not be given by the same people who wrote the draft Final Report document. However, these answers will most probably determine the overall direction and success of Project OLE, either as a guiding, influencing, or development force in library automation.

The final question I think anyone responsible for making an investment decision in terms of building OLE should ask themselves is this: If I were investing my own money in a company that said they were going to build OLE, would I do it? If not, I think you know what you should do when it comes to your organization’s money and OLE.

Collaboration with Choice

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:08:00 +0000

Ex Libris unveiled a new ad at ALA (pictured to the right). The ad highlights what I believe is an important message for the profession of librarianship: “Collaboration with Choice”. The ad lightheartedly conveys the point that “one size does not fit all” when it comes to libraries.

Why do I believe this is important? Because recent product announcements by some vendors and cooperative organizations are trying to reduce choices for libraries and forcing them to take a set of lowest-common-denominator solutions. This can ultimately be a real setback for libraries.

You may have seen a recent “web scale” ILS product announcement. Not unlike the global catalog around which it is built, the product offers limited openness, unclear levels of customization and truly generic approaches to meeting institutional and end-user needs. Yet another vendor is now offering a “web scale” -- (clearly the new buzz term!) -- discovery tool that it is saying “provides instant access to the breadth of authoritative content… No need to broadcast searches to other databases”. Of course, what they’re really telling you is that if your content provider does not agree to load its proprietary metadata into the vendor’s index, that database will no longer be easily available for your users to search--because the vendor only supports one type of search. How is that providing better service to end users? Undoubtedly this is slick marketing and a spin of the facts but it’s little more than that. Your library deserves, and should reserve, the right to real choices.

What is most disturbing about all of this is that generic, one-size-fits-all solutions are definitely not what collaboration is about. I’m sure we can all agree that Web 2.0, social networks and open source are all testimonies to the power of collaboration. But whereas those examples bring the benefits of collaboration all the way to your desktop, we’re seeing library vendors and cooperative organizations offering libraries something less, something shared and something
defined before reaching the desktop. Your library deserves unbridled collaboration.

The approach we’ve taken at Ex Libris reflects the following beliefs:

Libraries need their systems to meet the needs of their users not the other way around.
There should be no restrictions imposed by your vendor.
You should know that your vendor is not owned or biased towards any one content vendor (i.e. the vendor should be “content-neutral”). After all, that’s what users expect from libraries–non-sponsored, or otherwise favored content, but neutral, totally unbiased access.
You should have collaboration and choice.

We give libraries the tools they need to meet end-user needs. That includes a variety of search tools and methodologies that can reach as far as necessary to bring back a more comprehensive result set. We also provide libraries with options to freely select, and load, the databases they feel their end users will want to search. Furthermore, we enable Primo to interface with other systems via programs that customers can develop (and place in an open source environment if they so desire).

The bottom line is that libraries don’t need to compromise or settle for one-size-fits-all, in order to benefit from collaboration. So, why would you ever want to limit the choices your organization has? Libraries should and must provide both the benefits of collaboration AND the ability to preserve the uniqueness of their offerings in order for them to meet the needs of their users. Choose collaboration. Choose choice. Demand that they be served together so you can preserve what is special about your library services.

Digital Preservation -- Observations from PASIG

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:41:00 +0000

The SUN Preservation & Archiving Special Interest Group (PASIG) meeting, held last week in Malta, was once again a meeting of thought leaders in the technical aspects of digital preservation. Many common trends emerged as I listened to the excellent presentations.

Among the first trends I observed was this: digital preservation is still perceived as "too hard and (as a result, most feel they) can't do it", said Steve Knight, of the New Zealand National Library. He also noted the continuing "need for a sustainable digital preservation solution." Steve's observations closely match my own experiences and concerns. Too many librarians and archivists are quite simply ignoring the issue and/or using the economic crisis to avoid dealing with the challenges of digital preservation. Yet we face staggering growth in digital data. This also underscored Steve's observation that building long-term, economically sustainable solutions is a critically important issue.

The issues of context and technology crossed paths in conversations with and presentations by David Rosenthal of Stanford University. He pointed out the difficulties we face in preserving the context of objects, as well as the very information objects themselves, when so many objects are the result of the process of dynamic assembly used in creating mashups. He posed these questions: How do we capture all that information and do so in a way it can be re-used? And, how do we build solutions that will scale to meet these needs? These points also raised questions again of what do we choose to preserve because capturing any one information object contextually can logarithmically expand the total quantity of data to be captured. In addition, David raised the point that we don't yet have the needed "copyright framework for research data". The complexities involved in answering that particular legal issue involve working around people with vested interests and require working directly with research funding authorities on a national level. Good points and questions, each and every one of them.

The need for more best-practices, creating and/or updating standards, as well as the need for certification of Trusted Digital Repositories (TDRs) also emerged as a common theme. For instance, while OAIS is out for review and has been for quite some time, the status of that update work is very unclear. Yet, in a presentation by the FamilySearch attendees, they showed how they've made extensions to the standard to accommodate scalability issues that they've encountered and that were not addressed in the original design. This indicates to me things that need to be fed into that OAIS revision process. Chris Rusbridge of the University of Edinburgh did an interesting presentation about the need for repository certification and TDR's in order to provide users with the "trust"required to place their digital objects in preservation repositories. This is all too often an issue that has not yet received enough attention, yet Chris is absolutely right that it is very important.

During a panel session, I raised the point that while we were seeing a lot of thought leadership in the PASIG presentations, I felt what was needed was not just thought leadership, but "active and coordinated" thought leadership -- which it did not feel like we were achieving. I specifically put forth that, given the sheer size of the constantly growing corpus of digital data to be captured, not to mention the system scalability issues incurred by that growth and the necessary business models involved in making it all affordable, we might seriously question if the conference represented the best use of the valuable resources the conference itself entailed?

Too often, throughout the conference, it felt like many people were busy trying to solve the same problems, often arriving at similar, but yet different solutions that in the end catered to very specific and unique organizational needs. One wonders if we wouldn't be better off to focus on a larger, but more generalized vision. By designing a total overall framework in which developments made by the many conference participants could be plugged together for a more comprehensive solution, far greater progress might be made. Certainly best practices such as policy templates, lists of applicable and needed standards, audit practices, and standard backup processes/procedures would all be good starting points. For instance, we could take the list of identified areas needing standards development and put forth light-weight, quick-to-the-field draft standards that could evolve to become full, accredited standards after we had actual experience in using them. One approach that should definitely be used more is national plans and possibly even funding to drive national digital preservation work. I was particularly impressed at the conference, by the work being done in Slovakia in this area. They have come up with a "National Information Infrastructure" plan that covers digital preservation, and they've created an "Integrated Conservation Centre" to help coordinate libraries digitization initiatives. In a more specific example, Rob Sharpe of Tessella called for the creation of more national registries. All are examples of approaches that should be replicated on a wide scale. It was also very interesting to note the number of presentations that involved video and/or audio-visual objects in parallel, but separate fields. One remark by Richard Wright of BBC Future Media and Technology was particularly telling when he pointed out that they are also trying to solve many of the same issues and coming up with similar ideas. I've never heard a clearer call for librarians and archivists to reach across traditional boundary lines and work arm-in-arm with others to solve some large scale problems.

At the end of the conference, while the content was excellent, I was left with the concern that, while we're continuing to face huge challenges in digital preservation, we're trying to solve those challenges individually rather than collaboratively. That is an approach we can't afford financially or strategically. While we grapple with the challenges, the black hole that is permanently sucking away digital content that should be preserved is growing. We'll never be able to recover it. The only hope we have of bringing needs into line with capabilities is for us to envision a large-scale plan, seriously evaluate what can be done, and how, who can do it and start parsing out assignments to bring the collective results forward to the profession.

As the supply of information grows, so to does the need for new skills in librarianship.

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:20:00 +0000

I’m always reading. This is probably because my upbringing included weekly visits to the library and now because I am a librarian. Like many people, I find the most rewarding part of reading is how when you set the item down and think to yourself how interesting the content was and then being able to extrapolate how it applies to your life. Such has been the case for me recently with two items recommended by friends. The first is an article that appeared on the Educause website called “The Tower, the Cloud and Posterity” by Richard Katz and Paul Gandel and the second is a book called “True Enough; Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society” by Farhad Manjoo (Wiley and Sons, 2008). Both works cause you to stop and think about the affect the abundance of information and technology that is now available has on society and human behavior. The article goes on to raise the question of the role of the librarian in this changing environment.

What I found so fascinating was that like many, I’ve been so engrossed in the concept of making sure we capture, store, make discoverable and preserve access to information, that I hadn’t really stepped back to think about what the result of that might be. When mixed with the massive trend toward collaboration and social networking it turns out that it might not be entirely positive. I found this paragraph in the article by Katz/Gandel particularly thought provoking:

“will we leave a human record possessed of “too much
scrambled, meaningless trivia of information where discerning
anything of value or having context-rich value statements at all
becomes impossible?”…. “It is possible that as information
becomes so voluminous, the standards of selection become so
pluralistic, and the content of information becomes so nuanced,
feeling will replace analysis as the social barometer of truth?(1)”

It turns out they’re not alone in that thought. In the book “True Enough”, Farhad Manjoo also leads us through extensive examples of how information is now manipulated, spun, massaged, and sponsored. This is frequently a result of collaborative efforts such as are typical of Web 2.0 initiatives and access to the vast supply of information that is now available. By the end of the book, any worthwhile librarian is deeply disturbed and wondering how we will know that the information we’re selecting, storing and representing as accurate will really be so.

“The implications of having more than a billion people with persistent connections to the Internet and exabytes of information freely and openly available cannot be overstated.(2)” It raises the spectrum of the possibility that librarianship will need a whole new set of skill sets in the future. It almost certainly means for librarians that the context of any information stored must also be captured and stored with the information. Possibly, we’ll need to develop and use, via those same Web 2.0 collaborative initiatives and/or networks, people who can tell us if something has been manipulated. For instance; has a picture been extensively modified by a Photoshop(TM) expert? Given the vast supplies of information that will exist, all of these authors suggest that any point of view can and will be justified, in depth and great detail. If such is the case, how do we capture all of that information so we can assure people that we have the ability to provide the equally complete context in which any theory or hypothesis was developed? Think about how we do that when it comes to medical information about the authors? How many Lincoln scholars would love to have detailed information about Lincoln and the probability he had Graves disease? But if Lincoln lived today, given the issues of information privacy, even if we held that information, would we be able to allow its use?

People frequently ask each other for information about topics in their lives. I know as a librarian, I’ve always encouraged people to not just ask your friends, go to the library and get the facts. Now we must question the very information that we archive in the library for them to check. As librarians, it is becoming apparent that we will also need to be well trained in the laws pertaining to the use of information. Not only must we develop the new skills with which to do this, as noted by Katz and Gandel, “the librarians and archivist must not simply be part of this new cloud of digital information artifacts. They must take a leadership role in guiding its policies and practices. ”

As librarians this raises the specter of extensive new training courses in librarianship, new policies and guidelines to be developed, new things to teach and convey to our users along with new tools to be developed. The exabytes of information are growing. We best get busy ensuring the same is happening with our librarianship skills and training.

(1) “The Tower, the Cloud and Posterity” Richard N. Katz and Paul B. Gandel. Pg 186.
http://www.educause.edu/thetowerandthecloud/PUB7202q
(2) Ibid.

Going, going, gone??

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:17:00 +0000

It’s one of those days where I find myself on a morning flight between the offices of Ex Libris in Chicago and Boston, and I’m scanning today’s newspapers. I’m reading them on an Amazon Kindle, which is appropriate because this morning’s news stories have much to say about the accelerating move of books and information from analog to digital.

The “Financial Times” (June 10, 2009) carries the article “School textbooks near digital doomsday” wherein it details how California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger is promising to replace costly “outdated” textbooks with digital learning devices. He goes on to call textbooks “antiquated, heavy and expensive” and states that he no “longer sees the need for traditional hard-bound books when information is so readily available in electronic form”.

The next article I read is in Wired (June 2009) magazine, entitled “The Future of Reading” where Clive Thompson, in the subtitle states “To save books, publishers must go digital—and let audiences unlock the potential of the written word.” Thompson goes on to say that “Books are the last bastion of the old business model—the only major medium that still hasn’t embraced the digital age.” He then nudges us to “stop thinking about the future of publishing and instead think about the future of reading.”

All of which causes me to once again pause and ponder about the future of libraries and librarianship. As information continues to move to the digital medium, I wonder why we expect students whose textbooks and other sources of information are readily available electronically and wherever they are, to come to the library to use our resources, be they digital or analog? Will the library as “a place” or librarianship as a service have sufficient added-value to end-users to justify its continued existence? Or, will Deans and Provosts begin to eliminate librarian positions and/or library facilities on their campuses because they buy into the “it’s all available digitally” belief? Not to mention, they currently have to deal with an economic crisis so does that give them the perfect excuse to reduce/eliminate if they think this way? (In fact, later in the day, I talk to a consortium director who tells me the elimination of librarian positions is exactly what has happened at two of the colleges in his consortium). At the same time, we’re seeing the Pennsylvania state library have nearly 50 of their 57 staff positions eliminated. Left with such a skeleton staff one has to speculate if they’ll be able to do little more than keep the doors open and even then, at very limited hours, with very limited services. This is not exactly the future of librarianship we all had in mind, I’m sure. This leads me to the belief that we’ve arrived at a very important time for libraries and librarianship. It’s time to redefine them and then rapidly move towards that redefinition before it’s too late.

An interesting, yet obviously preliminary and partial part of that redefinition, is described later in the same June issue of Wired ( in an article by Steven Levy entitled “The Answer Engine” which describes Stephen Wolfram’s new Wolfram Alpha service . Applying a computational engine to the vast amount of digital information already available, Wolfram Alpha attempts to answer questions poised using the digital information now available. If you haven’t yet taken the time to experiment with this product, I would certainly encourage you to do so. Most librarians will likely find an encounter with Wolfram’s tool frustrating at the moment, but the potential it shows is fascinating.

What you’ll find clearly missing in this service, is what many of us librarians learned in the course called “Reference Services” which is where we learned how to interview the user, before starting the search, to find what exactly would meet the users information needs. There are many ways to do this in today’s digital environment. The point though, is that this is a place where clearly the skills of librarianship are needed and could play a very important role. Engaging in the development of these types of enhanced services is a place where I believe librarianship should be focused and headed, today and tomorrow. Of course, in the short term we need to show more immediate results. This can be done with activities such as those we describe in our Initiatives blog and as I’ve recently described in a post in the Federated Search Bog.

What seems obvious to me after reading all of these articles is that if we don’t start filling gaps like these with library services and librarianship skills, others will. If we want librarianship, and the values it represents, to survive intact, we must more rapidly adapt to this environment just as information is doing in moving from analog to digital. Otherwise, librarianship will be gone.

How does it know?!?

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:34:00 +0000

We all know that part of life is death, but it never lessens the pain or sorrow when you get the news that someone who substantially helped shape your career has left this earthly coil. Such was the news for me this past weekend with the news that a long-time colleague of mine in an earlier part of my career, Jim Michael, has departed.

Jim was a remarkable man, with a huge appetite for funny stories, libraries, life, family and food -- all of which he enjoyed with relish. I’ll always remember how he did a demo of the software, showed some wonderfully clever feature and then would turn to the audience of librarians and with a huge grin would ask; "How does it know?"

For those of us work in the field of library automation and were recruited away from libraries into the business side of librarianship by Jim, we owe him a lot. Jim was very close to the same age as my father. Like my dad did, and still does, Jim guided me with gentle patience as he shared his incredible knowledge and expertise on a wide range of subjects. As you would expect, conversations with Jim focused on libraries, building software products for libraries, library standards, understanding librarians and their needs as well as all those others who work in this industry, ranging from the press to lawyers, to consultants and other vendors. When you had reached your saturation point on the subject of libraries, he could just as easily change gears to discuss Biblical studies, fine wines (and God bless him, the best port I’ve ever smelled and tasted), cigars, coffees, food and any other subject you could wish to discuss at any level of detail you wanted to discuss. When you were finally tired of learning for the day, he’d tell you a funny story or joke, put a laugh in your belly, a smile on your face, a good cup of coffee in your hand and then send you back to your office to start applying that new bundle of expertise he'd just handed you.

However, the most important thing Jim taught me was that as you rose in the organization, you had an obligation to bring along the next generation of leadership. Through Jim’s understanding and guidance, he did that for me. Sometimes by counseling me when needed, sometimes by introducing me to those I needed to meet or explaining that which I did not yet understand. He always set the best example possible for me to follow. He taught me to lead when needed and follow when appropriate. He did it all in a way that showed tremendous respect for the people around him.

I’ve tried over the years, to faithfully apply those lessons and to do the same with those who work with me. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don’t, but I’ve always tried to remember the examples and the lessons Jim imparted. It’s an important part of leading an organization and one easily forgotten in the rush to get things done. But do it we must, for it is part of the job of leading and part of the obligation we hold, to those like Jim Michael, who taught us.

How does it know? Because Jim, like all the rest of us, you took the time to teach it. God bless you on your journey.

Lost Archive. Lost in the Archive. Lost on us?

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:05:00 +0000

Over the last month or so I’ve seen a couple of stark reminders about why digitization and digital preservation matter so much. The first case reported was where “in Cologne, Germany, a six-story building that housed a significant portion of cultural archives collapsed yesterday within three minutes. Among the documents were drafts and papers of Nobel prize-winning writer Heinrich Böll, and Karl Marx’s 19th century manuscripts, according to The Times of London.” Many of the original materials contained in the archive are now feared permanently lost, although some microfilm copies may allow reconstruction of portions of the collection. Due to this building’s collapse and the priceless contents it contained, a gap has been created in the historical record of European culture and it can’t be replaced.

In the second instance, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, was an article by Eric Jager, entitled “Lost in the Archives” which details the issues involved in doing research that require source materials that are not yet digitized. The author seeks an elusive document, critical for the author’s research and it is referenced by an entry in the Bibliotheque Nationale. However, the actual item can’t be located, isn’t digitized and thus ends up being presumed lost. The result? A permanent gap in the author’s research that can’t be filled any other way.

Let’s not let the lesson be lost on us. Both stories underscore the need and importance for libraries and archives to digitize critically important items and to surround those digital archives with preservation policies and preservation systems that ensure permanent access. However, digitization and digital objects, while providing extended access and helping ensure the loss of the physical item doesn't eliminate access, it too comes with requirements.

When discussing digital preservation, the point is often made there is no such thing as benign neglect. Yet it has been pointed out before this is the very policy used by many institutions to manage physical archival collections. As is also pointed out in that same link, using this policy with digital objects means their ultimate destruction. As knowledge continues to grow in leaps and bounds and increasingly only in digital formats, it becomes all the more critical that we aggressively move forward in preserving it.

There is no question that in this time of economic crisis, moving aggressively into digital preservation means finding new money in an increasingly challenging environment. Which is why I wonder if this isn’t yet another front for us to begin working toward making digital preservation for libraries and archives a national initiative tied to national infrastructure funding? The idea has certainly been mentioned before, but now is clearly the time to make it happen.

The situations described above will not be the last time the stories of loss and destruction of critical information appear. As librarians and archivists, we must understand the price we’re paying if we allow this to happen, and it is likely a price that won’t be fully known until far in the future, possibly past our lifetimes. However, it doesn’t have to be this way. I believe we can make the case to find national funding. Librarians and archivists also now have the technology, guidelines and many documented best practices available to them to help ensure these types of stories appear much less frequently. This would mean that libraries and archives could remain true to their mission statements of preserving knowledge and culture, and their access, well into the future.

Libraries; A Silence That Is Deafening - Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Sun, 24 May 2009 01:10:00 +0000

After my original post "Libraries: A Silence That Is Deafening" I heard from a reader, Donald B. Reynolds, Jr. who is the Director of a library in Morristown, Tennessee. Don pointed out to me that Leslie Burger, while President of ALA, had in fact taken on the issue of defining a vision for the future of libraries. He also provided me a link to the work. I read what she had done and was impressed with the effort. But I also noticed that her work seemed to dead-end with the end of her term as President which was in 2006/2007. So, I contacted Leslie and asked if she would do a guestblog on what had happened. The following is her post. I sincerely thank her for doing this.

Libraries; A Silence That Is Deafening - Part 3 by Leslie Burger, Director, Princeton Public Library and Past-President, American Library Association

There have been a number of blog posts recently about the concept of developing a national vision for libraries. I am pleased that this topic has come up once again for discussion within the library community. During my term as ALA president I advanced the idea of developing such a vision – a well-conceived articulation of what we want libraries to provide for the millions of people who use our services each year. In fact, I convened a group of thinkers who came together in ALA Washington’s Office to formulate the vision in December 2006, developed a draft for discussion among ALA’s various divisions, roundtables and interest groups, and authored a final document entitled, “An Agenda for 21^st Century Libraries”, that was widely distributed at the ALA 2007 Annual conference in Washington, DC. Then I was no longer ALA president and the library community and association turned its attention to my successor’s initiatives. Unfortunately, with only less than a year to get some traction on this discussion I just ran out of time to keep the ball rolling.

I agree with Carl, that now more than ever, we need a singular vision that excites our users, funders and our colleagues about the uniquely powerful role libraries play in our democracy and how what each of us do every day changes people’s lives. We need a vision to guide ALA’s legislative agenda. We need an agenda to ensure that we capture the attention of government officials and others so we can obtain the funding we need to fundamentally transform libraries and the communities we serve. I tried to do this within ALA but fell short so maybe we need to convene another group, in another venue to advance the cause. Perhaps it’s time for an un-conference, or some other informal gathering either in person or in the blogosphere to have this discussion. Let’s take some inspiration from President Obama and approach this from a grass roots perspective. We don’t need permission, we can do this on our own.

It is time for us to get rid of THEY thinking

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:10:00 +0000

I was just reading the May 1st, 2009 issue of Library Journal and an interesting article about “Publishers and Librarians: Two Cultures, One Goal”. I came across some sentences in the article that really frustrate me, both as a librarian and a vendor. Those were: “There are license agreements to figure out and phone calls from vendors for new databases we can’t afford. (I have never bought anything over the phone. Are they crazy?).”

The statement is a dichotomy. It is further exacerbated given the subtitle on the article – “two cultures, one goal”. The author is right in the subtitle in making the point that we’ve got to work together, librarians and vendors, toward the same goal(s). Which is why we have to change the kind of thinking shown in those sentences.

Most vendors will tell you that one of their largest costs; usually right behind the cost of the staff to produce products, is the travel budget to sell those products. If we can work together to reduce the vendor travel cost, we can work together to reduce the cost of those products. Why are vendors calling you on the phone and trying to sell you things? It’s not because they’re crazy, and in this time of economic crisis, it’s not because they’re trying to increase our profit margins, it’s because they’re trying to make those products more affordable for you to buy. If you can’t afford to buy a product, it does the vendor no good. Vendors have to sell to survive. So please pause to think about all the costs created with the typical library purchasing behaviors (multiple on-site sales calls, demo’s, RFI’s, complicated procurement and contracting processes) and realize that the vendor must turn around and cover those costs within the purchase price of those products. You want cheaper products, products you can afford? Work with the vendors to reduce the costs of selling those products.

The bottom line for vendors serving this community is that if you, as libraries and librarians don’t succeed, neither do we. We understand that. The next time a vendor salesperson calls you on the phone seeking to find out if a product solves a need you have, rather than concluding they’re crazy, please pause to think if they’re being responsive to your economic situation and trying to help you be successful. That would be “we” thinking instead of “they” thinking. We’re in this together. In this time of economic crisis, it’s time we for us to get rid of “they” thinking.

Libraries choosing to end preservation programs

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:15:00 +0000

I attended our User Group meeting last week and one of the programs was a panel presentation on preservation that I had organized. It was well attended and, of course, for both the panelists and me, this was very gratifying. After the presentation, Sandy Card from the State University of New York in Binghamton approached me and said, “Any credible library has a print preservation program. If they do, then why would they not have a digital preservation program?” She went on to point out that digital is part of a continuum and should not be considered a special and foreign entity entirely separate from print.

I have to admit, it’s a great question. Unfortunately, the reality is not so great. It is a bit shocking and depressing how many libraries have yet to start on any kind of digital preservation program and thus my reason for the headline on this post. If your library is not underway in planning and running a digital preservation program, your library has chosen to end its preservation program.

Why are so many libraries apparently choosing this alternative? Many find the complexity of the problem overwhelming. There are a myriad of issues and complicating factors including technical and legal, not to mention the need to plan for preservation, generate sustainable business models and find ways to fund the cost. Yet the reality is that enough libraries have started down this pathway that there is a lot of information now available to help libraries through this process and to solve these problems. Answers are being found or developed. There are conferences, blogs, wikis and numerous online resources that will also help (see the list below for a quick set of references).

If you’re totally new to digital preservation and want to get started and have a bit of a chuckle while learning about digital preservation, I highly recommend the video that one of the panelists, Ed Corrado of the State University of New York, Binghamton used at the start of our panel presentation mentioned above. It’ll help you understand what digital preservation is, why you need it and how to get started.

Whether you’re new to digital preservation or not, there are definite steps you, on behalf of your organization, should be undertaking. These include:

Learning about all the new and emerging developments, best-practices, workflows and solutions being developed in this field. Read the references cited below and/or sign up to monitor blog and website feeds on the topic. Attend local seminars and conferences on the subject. Sign up for a training class in digital preservation ( See here for more info.)
Start inventorying the total digital content your organization has, formats, sizes, counts and what is not being preserved in any way shape or form currently (which will become the starting point of your efforts).
Remind colleagues that preservation begins with the start of any new digital initiative in your community. Granted, you may decide that the content may not pass the criteria for being preserved, but the question must be asked.
Start developing the policies and guidelines you’ll use in running a digital preservation program. This can’t be overstated and it was interesting on the panel discussion last week how many times this theme recurred. Develop these early as they’ll set the parameters by which you’ll be able to determine how much you’re going to be responsible for preserving, under what conditions, for how long, etc. All of these are essential to understanding the budget that will be needed.
Finally, a point that is made in the document “Sustaining the Digital Investment” is to be sure your funding authorities understand that preservation isn’t just about ensuring access to content 50-100 years from now, it is about ensuring access to content 3-5 years from today. (If you own 3” floppy disks, you know what we’re talking about here).

The bottom line reality is this: due to the lack of active, sustainable digital preservation programs, we are losing access to valuable and important cultural information, right now, today. As librarians and archivists, if we allow this to happen, we are falling down on the job. If we don’t reverse this trend quickly, the gap in the human record is going to be large and unrecoverable and the headline at the start of this post will be proven to have been true.

Selected References:

Sustaining the Digital Investment; Issues and Challenges of Economically Sustainable Digital Preservation. December 2008.
The Preservation of Digital Materials; A Library Technology Report. February/March 2008 issue.
Digital Preservation Management; Implementing short-term strategies for long term problems.
The ESPIDA Project.
The SUN sponsored Preservation and Archiving Special Interest Group (PASIG).
The Ex Libris Digital Preservation System (Rosetta).

Libraries: Silence Across the Pacific Too

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:51:00 +0000

By Derek Whitehead
President, Australian Library and Information Association

Thank you to Carl Grant for inviting me to guestblog for the new Commentary blog. Carl kicked off with a post entitled Libraries: A Silence That Is Deafening.

Carl is concerned that there is no national vision for libraries, and they are nowhere on the national agenda. Libraries have a lot to contribute in the current environment, but in reality, they have hardly been touched by the huge volume of increased federal infrastructure spending being unleashed now – at best, a cameo role in a trillion dollar performance, Carl suggests. We are part of the national information and education infrastructure, so why aren’t we sharing in the massive infrastructure rebuild going on now?

Quite true, and very distressing. It is pretty much as true of Australia, unfortunately, as it is of the US. Libraries did not rate in the outcomes of the Australia 2020 Summit a year ago. They have played only a small part in the current spending on infrastructure.

Here are a few messages from Australia.

Two new studies of school libraries and librarians by Edith Cowan University, in Perth, Western Australia – see this link that shows that half of Australia’s school libraries have less than A$10,000 a year to spend, while there is a deteriorating infrastructure and chronic under-staffing.

The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) is holding a Public Libraries Summit on 16 July. We would really love all three levels of government to pitch in and support the public library system – local, state and national – as part of a national information infrastructure. But of A$42 billion provided in February in the National Building and Jobs Plan, A$550 million will go to the Community Infrastructure Program, and some of that (we don’t know how much) will go to public libraries. Getting our own act together is the first step. See this link.

Not just the public library infrastructure. In Australia’s national report on innovation, Venturous Australia, Dr Terry Cutler proposed a National Information Strategy which “optimizes the generation and flow of ideas and information in the Australian economy.” He stressed the importance of national collections, and recommended more money for cultural and scientific collections, specific funding for open access repositories, support for key state collections as well as national collections, and more.

Australia’s Friends of Libraries (FOLA) have suggested that in times of economic downturn, libraries have an enhanced value to the country – their use is counter-cyclical, to quote the jargon. “The critical message from the current and previous economic downturns is that when the economy is weaker, families and people need, use and value their public libraries even more.” See their statement in The Economic Downturn and Public Libraries.

One response to questioning about the future of libraries – my response in fact – is to re-assert the values which libraries hold. The values are more important than books (which have taken a few hits in recent years one would have to admit), more important than Google (which wrong-headed librarians see as a rival rather than a complement), more important than Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 (actually something like Library 8.0 – we’ve been around a long time). ALIA has strong values – see this link.

The values are access to information, inclusiveness, information democracy, the right to know. Library values are very important for everyone.

Redefining innovation…

noreply@blogger.com (Carl Grant) — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:46:00 +0000

Librarians will begin receiving this week the May issue of American Libraries wherein they will see our newest advertisement:

Certainly the ad is a bit tongue-in-cheek with its depiction of a black-box ILS exploding into a rainbow of new and open-platform options that can be supplied by Ex Libris. However there is also a very important message contained in this ad for all libraries.

As a profession, we’ve spent over 30 years of effort and gone through several generations of technology in creating a core automation infrastructure that is in place today in nearly every library. The functionality contained in all those products is, on one hand, extremely rich. On the other hand, with each new version and new set of features comes some level of additional complexity. Where is the balance point? Right now, a lot of discussion in the profession is centering on what to do about that technology? Replace it? Or, can we leverage what we have?

It has been interesting to note that many of the discussions about next generation software for libraries mention the need for “less complexity” in systems. Maybe. I’m sure it’s true that if an audit could be done of what functions are used by librarians, out of the entire suite of functions available, we’d find it is only a subset used day-in-and-day-out. Yet, that additional functionality was deemed important enough to add and many librarians will tell you its still important to running their libraries efficiently. Is there other functionality that is no longer needed because of other changes? Sure. For instance, many academic environments now no longer have libraries collect payments, it is simply a charge passed directly to the pursers’ office for collection. As more information becomes digital, will we even need overdue policies? Serials are becoming digital, so do we need prediction patterns, receipt check-in, etc. Probably not. The real point for me is this: what are really changing behind the scenes are our workflows. The idea that bringing in a simplified solution to handle a few portions of a library’s operation is surely false economy if that means that the lack of functionality in that and other areas causes workloads to multiply by many factors to make up for those few simplified workflows. It seems to me that what we need are comprehensive, unified management solutions and until those are available, the ability to leverage the sizable intellectual and financial investment we’ve made in our existing technology.

I doubt we’ll find many that will argue that librarianship today needs to be agile, responsive to user needs and show creative thinking in dealing with new workflows and end-user needs. Another solution that exists in the market that has always seemed short-sighted and false economy is those that buy core infrastructure solutions that install easily and requires little management but are so totally locked down that the library can only be agile and responsive to their end-user needs if their vendor sees those needs the same way. This, if it happens, all too often comes with an expensive price tag. Is that agile? Is that innovative?

Another approach is the message we’re highlighting in our new ad. We all understand that we’re in a transition period. A time when new technology solutions are taking shape both as a result to change in the information environment, but also because of the economic environment. Until those new solutions are available, libraries will need to be extremely agile and responsive. They need to be able to focus on end user needs, deliver new discovery and information handling tools and preserve the value of librarianship. All this must happen while the day-to-day operation of the library runs smoothly.

Having sophisticated, functionally rich systems in place that are, to use our parlance “open-platform” means the best of all worlds during this transitional time. Solid and market proven solutions. Out of the box interfaces, but also the ability to have customized and/or open source interfaces, to users and other systems on top. This would allow all of us to be focused on meeting end-user needs and delivering all the functionality they’ve come to expect. That to me would be true innovation in librarianship.