Only as good as…
On Friday morning, my family – who haven’t all been together in over a year – will pull up to my doorstep, load my bags in the car, and drive eight hours (allowing for snack-time) together to Syracuse, NY. On Saturday, the three of them will watch me gather my freshly minted MLIS at convocation.
In my introductory course three years ago Scott Nicholson introduced me to the idea that a library is a foundation of any community it serves. And it follows that a community, be it a college campus or a rural town, cannot be stronger than its library. In academic libraries, this means a college or university is only as strong as its library.
As the movement toward remote services gains momentum I would expand this to a university is only as good as its library AND a library is only as good as its online services.
Tom Boone is my hero this week for explicitly documenting goals for remote services in his technology planning:
The website needs to evolve into a full fledged branch location of the library. The website *is* the library…
The Law Library website will serve as a branch location of the library, offering any and all possible items and services to remote patrons.
He intentionally omits mentioning any specific tools – blogs, IM, RSS, mobile devices- which frames remote services as an important and agile part of the library as well as enables those who have responsibility over it in the future to meet new user needs and expectations free from an artificial attachment to yesterday’s tools.
Congratulations on your MLIS degree!
I certainly hope your optimism about the tech plan I’m drafting is contagious, because my library director still has to approve it. If and when she does, I’ll then have to convince the rest of our library staff to buy into the plan — without them staging a mutiny first.
But I’m in full agreement with you that a library is only as good as its online services, particularly in an academic environment where the majority of students are members of a generation that expects access to everything from anywhere at anytime. If we don’t give them that access, someone else will. Which will make us obsolete.
I feel great pressure to improve the quality of my comments, since this is now the blog of a Master, and not just a lowly student. Way to go.
But foregoing quality, I have long liked the idea that a library’s website should essentially be a branch library – meaning that it can serve patrons independently of the main building. By extension, then, it is absolutely necessary to staff this branch appropriately. In many cases, it seems library websites are an afterthought, or are dumped on whoever happens to have the time, the inclination, or the skills (but not necessarily all three), or are contracted out to a third-party developer who creates the website but does not maintain it. It seems that before a library website could ever hope to be and remain useful to patrons, it must be staffed like any other branch.
Also, in regards to tools like RSS, IM, etc.: jumping on the bandwagon and saying a library offers these doesn’t seem inherently useful to me – these technologies are just tools, after all, like “print” or “fax.” A library can say “we’ve got books,” but if all those books are outdated or duplicate copies, they are not a useful tool for patrons. So, rather than libraries just offering more technology tools out of peer pressure, I’d like something along the lines of Tom Boone’s goals, but that would serve as an actual collection development plan that includes not only these tools, but information sources as well.
Because, does just offering IM reference and RSS updates of events make a library website a branch library? These certainly provide for interactivity, but do they provide access to information? Someone could IM the reference desk and ask a question, which the reference librarian could then look up in a book – but that’s not a branch library, that’s a reference service. A “branch library” shouldn’t strive for patron interactivity, but patron independence (libraries should provide access to information, not access to librarians). Which would require all library tools, including the book collection and databases with At-Home access, to be available remotely (and I mean the actual full text, not just our catalog citations). Google Books is going that way, but even that still doesn’t sit well with me (pesky copyright laws).
So before we create a MySpace profile for the library (or Facebook for the academics) because it’s the hip thing to do, we need to figure out what happens next. Would kids actually contact the library through MySpace? And if they did, will we have anything to offer, or will all of our answers be “well, if you come into the library, we have a book
Tom – Thank you for you congrats. I’m shameless enough to offer some graduation photos. I found your technology plan unarguably sensible. I’m sure your director and staff will agree.
Brian – Tools like RSS, IM and the like DO have a place in the library, but their use must be reevaluated regularly and their continuing relevance constantly examined by the web staff. I mean that we can’t invest in the web site’s tools, this would risk quick obsolescence – and a continuing silo structure. I think this follows your idea about approaching new online tools from a collection development standpoint.
I agree with you… I would summarize simply that every new service must be related to the organization’s misson and plans. If it doesn’t, it’s inappropriate.