Andy Woodworth of the Burlington County Library System addressed both quite recently. In a guest post on Will Manley’s blog, he asked his colleagues  “How do you feel about the Librarian image?” On his own blog he writes in The Master’s Degree Misperception: “It is a disservice to the education, to the degree, and to the profession when the bulk of a librarian’s daily tasks could be performed by someone with a GED.” Both essays generated a cascade of comments, as these posts always seem to, and reveal how frustrated and beleaguered many public library employees feel.

Kudos to Andy for saying what many observe: the ceiling is low in terms of the services most public libraries provide and professional opportunity they can offer to employees. This is a significant structural problem that will accrue to their demise as much as technological disruption or tight funding. We’ve got to raise the ceiling — not to save libraries, but because there are so many things our citizens and communities need that the marketplace does not provide (and librarians are well-trained and positioned to provide). I’ve offered a number of ideas and have more to share.

The sky is the limit. Digital technology has made so much possible and based on the people I met at the Reference Renaissance conference last month, I believe we have an incredible untapped labor pool in our nation’s librarians. It’s time to tap into it.

It’s unlikely these professionals will be adequately leveraged within the current ecosystem. If our public libraries have remained impervious to substantive change up to this point, what will it take to budge them?  I’ve been pushing a National Public Library Corporation to address funding, deliver better content & services and provide increased employment and upward mobility for the library profession. Weigh in. Can you get behind an NPL? If not, can you think of ways to get this stone to roll?

Additional reading:
1. A recent blog post on employment outlook from the front lines.
2. ALA, Planning for 2015: The Recent History and Future Supply of Librarians, June 2009

John Blyberg, Assistant Director of Innovation & User Experience, supports a range of applications on the Library’s in-house server. Some organizations simply need a basic webhosting account, others use a blogging platform and a few require a CMS. He also provides consultation for organizations unfamiliar with web technologies to help them determine the best configuration to meet their needs.

The plethora of web technologies (and reconciling recommendations from consultants, peer organizations and personal connections) can be overwhelming for most folks. As a result, many NPOs and municipal agencies spend more time and money than they need to on technology services. The Darien organizations are extremely fortunate to receive webhosting and consultation free-of-charge from their library.

In my first article on a National Public Library Corporation, I suggested:

It would also benefit the public and libraries if [the NPL technology] solutions could be shared by other municipal agencies. The public would receive more convenient, consolidated access to their local governments and have their library to thank for it. Libraries might find agencies that currently compete with them for local funding becoming allies if they were using modules of the library’s information system to manage some of their administrative functions.

When we spoke, John actually highlighted this as a benefit by pointing out that people who use the webhosting are “influencers” and voters who may not necessarily use traditional library services. Way to go Darien Public Library — for finding a powerful way to serve the community and advocate for the library!

Welcome Guest Artists

I’d love to broaden the gallery with more photos and other image types that exude a love of libraries and help reinforce the brand.

Are you a visual person? Please consider becoming a guest artist.

Key Findings

Percent Usage by Age Group

Via the Scholarly Kitchen

When it comes to fundraising and donors, it’s no longer enough for non-profit organizations to talk about the relative value of their mission, activities, and results. Funders are comparison-shopping, and they want to know that their gifts will deliver more bang-for-the-buck if contributed to one organization versus another.

Her first reference, a working paper from Harvard Business School, articulates an aspect of the dilemma quite well:

[The] literature points to two basic tensions confronting nonprofit managers. First, nonprofits that focus on measuring results at the front end of the logic chain (inputs and outputs) risk being seen as failing to be accountable, failing to convince funders and citizens that they are making a difference. Those that do try to demonstrate broader societal outcomes and impacts risk overreaching by taking credit for social changes beyond their actual control.

In libraryland, one side of the tension plays out in the manual tracking of questions received at the service desk, gate counts, library cards issued and other discrete activity measures. On the other are unverifiable claims such as libraries’ preservation of democracy or putting people back to work during the current recession.

Like it or not, public libraries are positioned more like nonprofits than governmental agencies and will likely need to increase their reliance on donated resources. Alix Vance concludes “measures of impact offer significant competitive advantages in marketing and fundraising — and can give major advantages to organizations that crack the code.” Large nonprofits are equipped to work on the challenge. Can the same be said for libraries?

How do we get patrons to use the databases? We spend a lot of money on them and no one uses them.

This question from a public librarian during one of the Reference Renaissance forums intrigued me. My first reaction was to wonder why a library would continually subscribe to resources patrons aren’t using and my second was to ponder why the databases aren’t being used.

Why do libraries subscribe to databases with low utilization?

Might it be that:

• this is one of those basic, functional things we seldom question (i.e. databases are part of the collection and collection management is a core library function);
• the databases come as part of a consortium membership or bundled with other resources, thereby obscuring their costs and making it easier to take them than leave them;
• other libraries in the area have them and yours doesn’t want to be the first to go without?

The time for bold library action is upon us, so for all resources libraries know (or strongly believe) are not being used, I say: just drop ‘em. Don’t do a survey or ask broad permission, just drop ‘em. Here’s why:

• Seeking affirmation and permission generally reinforces the status quo regardless of how costly or unproductive it is. Asking forgiveness rather than permission is an effective change management tactic. I’ve used it throughout my career when faced with outmoded, costly or unproductive elements and found that 99% of the time, the change goes unnoticed.
• Hanging on to, or worse yet, promoting resources people don’t find valuable contributes to an impression of library irrelevance. Better to use the funding spent on underutilized databases to deliver programs and services that more people will value.
• Subscribing to databases in spite of poor utilization suppresses vendor dialogue about what would make the products more valuable. As long as libraries continue to subscribe to them, there’s no incentive for vendors to make more than cosmetic changes to database products.

If you drop the databases, what about the patrons who did use them? When a user inquires:

• Be prepared to advise if the information sought is available on the open internet or another dB; reasonable users will appreciate the reference along with knowing their library is spending public funds wisely.
• In cases where there isn’t an alternate source, purchase an individual article for the patron. If the databases are truly underutilized, the annual cost (material and labor) of individual purchases will probably be less than database subscriptions. Particularly in these financially challenging times, I believe reasonable users will appreciate this cost containment.

Why aren’t patrons using the library databases?

I don’t use them because doing so is terribly inefficient. The databases themselves are inefficient; their interfaces and functionality seem 8-10 years behind the times. The brief descriptions on library websites or information on the dB interfaces haven’t helped me determine which database is best suited for a particular type of inquiry and so I may have been looking in the wrong place for information. Unfortunately, the 4-5 times I’ve sought help at a public library haven’t gone well. Staff has simply logged in and rummaged around, seemingly with no more familiarity or expertise than I have. In my estimation, Google or good content websites win hands down on discoverability; once I’ve identified a resource, I go through the tedious process of retrieving information from a library database as a last resort if it isn’t freely available elsewhere.

During the forum, the topic of usability arose in response to the public librarian’s question. Panelist Jamie Larue, Director of Colorado’s Douglas Public Library, briefly gave straightforward examples of how the databases could be organized much better. And following the forum, one of the librarians I was chatting with ‘went off’ a bit about their deficits and listed a half-dozen serious usability problems. So I’m not the only one who grades these databases as “needs improvement”.

Is database usage low at your public library? Do you have users that view the library databases as a sub-par resource of last resort? If so, what can be done about it?

Welcome Guest Artists

I’d love to broaden the gallery with more photos and other image types that exude a love of libraries and help reinforce the brand.

Are you a visual person? Please consider becoming a guest artist.

I pitched the idea of a National Public Library Corporation, which sparked some spirited discussion.  Here’s an outline of the proposal:

The Dilemma

• Public libraries across America are struggling
• Current public library funding models are unsustainable
• Library staff are bogged down with the basics – recreating the same wheels
• Operations/maintenance take time away from more value-added services
• It’s too hard to be a library professional and an IT professional; libraries do not have staff or funding to develop effective content management, collaboration and productivity systems or websites

The National Public Library Corporation (NPL)

• It’s time to leverage resources where it makes sense while retaining local autonomy & authenticity
• Create a national library organization similar to PBS and NPR; leverage: IT & software development, common content development (literacy, reference, reader’s advisory). Retain: personal service, programming, local content development
• Participation would be voluntary
• Membership would bring one annual member fee, one account & vendor to manage, many services

What Libraries Get

• Freedom from techno-drudgery; figuring out what to invest time in, researching options, self-training, creating accounts with multiple services, managing passwords, vendors, agreements …
• A top-notch external online platform; unique domain name, webhosting with templates & all the fixin’s (email, calendar, chat, survey, newsletter, blog, syndication) and tech support
• A top-notch internal productivity & collaboration platform; configurable personal account for each staff member, email, chat, RSS feed reader, doc storage, access to content, events, newsletter, continuing education…
• Top-notch content; a library “race to the top” via collaboration, content sharing & continuous improvement; libraries select what content best meets their local needs
• Brand awareness thru excellence; national syndication of outstanding content & services; extension of the public’s trust with a “Librarian Stamp of Approval” on factual information sources
• Professional mobility; gain vertical mobility by becoming a collection curator, a blogger, technical trainer; horizontal mobility because standardization makes moving between libraries easier; visibility beyond libraries for outstanding work

What The Public Gets

• Better content & services; libraries’ “Cream of the Crop”
• Online services we can trust; secure and non-commercial
• Richer library experiences; library staff can be more engaged with patrons because they have access to better resources and aren’t so bogged down with operations
• Personalization and embodiment that PBS and NPR cannot deliver; having 3 complimentary national services would be a rich information trifecta!

What Financial Contributors Get

• Benefits to libraries and donors of local funding (taxes, Friends, Foundations) remain the same.
• The NPL would receive funds from the federal government as well as large corporate and organizational contributions that generate donor visibility by delivering tangible value directly to users

How to Get Started

• Find a champion.
• Bill Moyers comes to mind for his outstanding career and public service. He’s recently retired and speaks persuasively about the enduring needs of the nation.
• Arianna Huffington also comes to mind for her political conversion, advocacy for average Americans and media savvy.

Welcome Guest Artists

I’d love to broaden the gallery with more photos and other image types that exude a love of libraries and help reinforce the brand.

Are you a visual person? Please consider becoming a guest artist.

I thought I might blog – but the outdoors is calling me … so I’ll be back on Aug 23 with more extreme thoughts on public libraries. For now, enjoy a glimpse of the lovely Estes Valley Library!