I walked away from tonight’s MIT Communication Forum presentation thinking about the parallel between broadcast television and libraries. Heroes producers Jesse Alexander and Mark Warshaw were the presenters for a conversation titled: nbc’s heroes: from “appointment tv” to “engagement tv”? Hearing these two producer/writers (yes they are currently on strike!) speak about the transition taking place in broadcast television enabled me to see the strike from another perspective. But the thing that was most striking to me was to think about an industry that is facing some of the same issues that libraries face.

Technology isn’t exactly leaving broadcast television behind…, but the economic model looks less and less viable. Cable, Internet, cell phones, etc. all mean that broadcast television is no longer the dominant model for receiving what we’ve known as television programing. Heroes is on the forefront of developing a transmedia content model. They use the Web, comic books, dvd, and greeting cards among other media to provide content, and not simply another mechanism for delivery of the same content. Web content supplements but is distinct from the core series that is broadcast.

The economic model for libraries seems to me equally problematic. The volume of information being produced esclates rapidly, the costs for materials increases faster than our budgets can support, and we function in an increasingly transmedia environment.

I’ve long thought the NPR model for developing a broad based support network might helpful for libraries. NPR’s transition from relying primarily on government support to listener support is an interesting model for not-for-profits organizations. The nbc.com/heroes model is an interesting model for profit-based industries. They maintain their core product, but are spinning off a wide variety of content delivery systems that engage their user base and provide additional revenue streams.

I’m not quite sure where this leads, but I could imagine a library maintaining its core mission to support the teaching and learning that takes place in the institution, but spinning off other ventures that would generate income. That’s not a business plan, but perhaps the beginning of a vision.

For those who haven’t read it, Tom Storey’s article in the latest issue of NextSpace provides a brief introduction to Fred Reicheld’s The Ultimate Question. As I read the article (no I haven’t yet read the book), it occurred to me that this is very different from traditional assessment methods. I enjoyed very much reading Maxwell L Anderson’s “Metrics of Success in Art Museums.” It prompted me to begin thinking about the central goal we are trying to achieve in the Library and how one might measure one’s effectiveness in achieving that goal. Reicheld’s approach, however, seems to allow the customer to define the goal. What is it the customer is trying to achieve and how well does the Library aide her in that task?

Are you asking the ultimate question? [OCLC]
As libraries battle popular search engines and Internet research services for users, the new book The Ultimate Question by Fred Reichheld says that one simple question determines an organization’s future: Would you recommend us to a friend? Learn more about this one-question survey and the latest efforts in library customer service and assessment.

Speaking about the future of scholarly publishing, Kate Wittenberg echoes what I’ve been saying for awhile:

The Chronicle: 6/16/2006: Beyond Google: What Next for Publishing?
Most students today arrive at college assuming that a Google search is the first choice for doing research, that MySpace is the model for creating online content and building peer communities, and — perhaps most important — that multitasking with various electronic devices, often from remote locations, is the traditional way to do class work. The implications of those changes must transform our publishing strategies.

If “digital natives” are the next audience for our scholarly resources, shouldn’t we be thinking about new ways to organize, store, and deliver our content? In fact, is content even what we should be focusing on for this next generation of users, or are the tools, functionality, and access built on top of the content what are of real value?

Hers is one of a growing number of voices suggesting the need for radical change in scholarly publishing. I really like her phrase: “Beyond Google.” It’s hard now to envision life beyond Google, but it may be better to think not about the demise of the company, but what happens as Google becomes a commodity. What will be the emerging trends, expectations, etc. that will shape the information discovery and seeking patterns of our users.

Frederick Nesta has a brief article entitled: “Google Your Library’s Mission,” in Library Journal‘s June issue that suggests a few ways the Google corporate philosophy might help libraries plan for their future. Nesta pushes us to think beyond traditional collections and services. Perhaps what lies beyond Google is a different way of being libraries…

Occasionally when I read something, it makes so much sense I wonder why I didn’t think of it…. (Read Don’t scar on the first cut – Signal vs. Noise (by 37signals))

In the Theology Library, we’ve recently added several new staff members to fill vacant positions. More frequently than I had anticipated, I’m asked “policy” questions. What do we do when…? I guess I should have expected it. With retirements and resignations, we lost part of our institutional memory. A lot of “wisdom” has suddenly disappeared. I’ve been happy to respond to the questions. But at some level, I’ve resisted writing “policy” statements.

I’ve been trying to shift the Library’s focus to be more “user oriented.” When I’m asked a “what do we usually do?” kind of question, I generally respond based on an implicit policy: “Whatever best serves the Library user.” Naturally that’s tempered by the constraints of available resources. But, the reason we are here is to serve the “customer.” There are times when I think there should be only one policy: “Help the customer succeed in whatever they are trying to do.”

[Un]Fortunately that leaves the Library staff to determine how to answer the question every time we encounter a new customer. That’s what we should be doing, but it’s hard without either a well-developed policy (or decision chart) or a substantial body of wisdom to draw upon when making a decision. The
David Heinemeier (from Signal vs. Noise) suggests that we opt for wisdom:

When something goes wrong, have a chat about it, embed the learning in the organizational memory as a story instead of a policy. Stories have context and engage the listeners, so next time a similar situation arise, you’ll be informed by the story and act wiser.

Lorcan Dempsey suggests the difference between the rights of ownership of copyright protected materials and licensing are not as different as one might at first image:

What this means is that a large part of library collections is still in copyright. The library ‘owns’ the cost of storing it, shelving it, keeping it at the right temperature, and so on. It can be shared and borrowed in its current form. However, the library does not ‘own’ it to the extent that they can freely re-format it and allow it to be used by many parties.

In this sense, the gap between the materials that libraries ‘own’ and the materials that libraries license is smaller than we are used to thinking about.

His point is well-taken. I especially appreciate his inclusion of the ongoing cost of storing and preserving the item. What he’s describing may be more akin to a “lease-to-own” plan. If the library (or individual that purchases the book) keeps a book long enough, the rights of ownership do eventually include the right to copy, digitize, etc. The work eventually moves into the public domain. But the cost is quite high.

Scott Bennett’s article and cost analysis, Just-in-Time Scholarly Monographs builds in more detail case models to compare what he calls “Just-in-Time” versus “Just-in Case” models for libraries. “Just-in-case” strategies would acquire books in case someone might need them. “Just-in -time” strategies acquire a book only when it is needed. Nearly 10 years old, Bennett’s cost models continue to provide a helpful model for modeling the cost of various strategies for providing ready access to materials.
I’ve been thinking about how to control the cost of housing a book for the long-term, and retrieval of that book for use by library users. The cost of digitizing books has decrease in recent months. One of my primary costs is retrieval of books shelved off-site. I recently calculated it cost us over $50 to retrieve and return an item from off-site shelving.
Shifting to digital access to these materials may be more a more cost effective means of providing access to lesser used materials.

The What if Wal-Mart Ran a Library?

I wish I had thought of this….

Joseph J. Esposito has written a really fascinating article about what a libray might be like if Wal-Mart ran it…

abstract: The giant retailer Wal-Mart is used here as a metaphor for large-scale industrial processes that are being brought to bear on many industries in the evolving global economy, but by and large not on academic institutions and libraries in particular. It is anticipated that the application of such processes will reshape the world of libraries as we know them, with an increasing division between the support of undergraduate education and the requirements of research faculty. While there will be significant opposition to the introduction of such processes, especially because of the resulting disruption of the lives of academic librarians and their institutions, inasmuch as the decisions to make these changes are driven by increasing economic pressures and will be made by authorities above librarians in the institutional hierarchy, the Wal-Martization of the academic library is inevitable.

A couple months ago I began playing with the concept of collection development as a primary pedagogical tool for libraries in the pre-Google environment. Somewhat analogous to the editorial and peer review for scholarly journals, collection development combined faculty input and librarian expertise for the purpose of creating a collection that would support the active engagement of students in rich bodies of literature. The faculty and students could be confident that the collection would support the curriculum of study. Through engagement with the literature, students could be formed by that engagement and shape the future of the discipline.
In a post-Google environment, I’ve proposed that this pedagogical tool has already broken down. Students no long feel the constraints of the physical collection so carefully gathered and maintained by librarians. Google has become the primary tool for information discovery and if a document isn’t online, it isn’t even consulted.
Ann Okerson’s recent presentation about the changes in collection development nicely documents what I’ve been thinking. Not only have our users rejected the physical constraints of the collections we’ve built, but the business models and work flows through which we obtain (purchase and license) information has increasingly taken selection out of the hands of local librarians.

I’ll not try to summarize Lorcan’s rather long posting, but rather urge you to read it. Then read it again. I’ve been reading the long-tail postings for awhile, and have made several comments on this blog. Lorcan’s post is the most thoughtful comment about how Long Tail applies to libraries that I’ve read. It pushes us to think about a different business model for libraries.

I’ve read it once. I’m going to think about it and will probably comment on it in a future posting. For now, read it…