Andrew K. Pace: January 2009 Archives

Unique is a Strong Word

|
CommentsComments (3) | Bookmark or Share Bookmark or Share

I promised a follow-up on the RMG session at ALA, but rather than give a blow-by-blow account (done nicely by Leonard Kniffel already), I thought I would single out one part of the conversation.

I am a lover of language, though I am often careless myself.  I bite my tongue at grammatical errors or poor language usage.  But I am bothered more by the use of words that violates the spirit but not the law of vocabulary and grammar.  Repeated superlatives annoy me.  More than one exclamation point per page should never survive editing.  Given the word's roots in crucifixion, I cringe at the loose usage of "excruciating" to describe the most trivial personal trial.

So that is why I was dismayed to hear one of the library automation CEOs on Rob McGee's RMG panel describe each of his customers as "unique."  It is this kind of thinking, I believe, that could be detrimental to true innovation in libraries. 

I'm not suggesting that libraries are not unique--a mixture of staff, skills, collections, geography, and patrons makes for a distinctive offering.  But remember, the panel was talking about re-inventing the integrated library system.  Is a circulation transaction unique?  Is the act of buying a book unique?  Is each catalog record unique (or more likely, does it need to be)?

This is, of course, a shared problem.  Locally installed systems with infinite configurability tempt libraries to strive for uniqueness where they shouldn't and cause vendors to create more and more incremental (and expensive) changes to commodity systems that support the least distinctive workflows in library management. 

eBay or Amazon do what they can to create unique experiences for customers, but once we click that "purchase" button, we are all a credit card number and address.  Imagine the custom offerings libraries could be making if the focus shifted from configuring and explaining what should be industrialized processes to the things that make them truly unique.

From the Field: RMG

|
Bookmark or Share Bookmark or Share
It's Friday afternoon at ALA, so of course I am at annual RMG session hosted by library consultants Rob McGee and Pat McClintock.  I'd be lying if I denied that a big part of me would rather be at the OCLC Symposium where David Weinberger and Nova Spivak are speaking.

This has to be an all-time record for number of people on the RMG panel (or any panel for that matter).  Ten library automation representatives (including my boss, Robin Murray, Vice President of Global Product Management) and a panel of 5 library innovaters.  Forty minutes in and the introductions are over.

A few years ago at this session, I accused the panel of CEOs of not innovating enough. A charge that none of them was ready to answer at the time.  This was before next-gen catalogs, the uptake of open source management systems, and better business intelligence tools.  4 years later, I'm pleased to see a few major changes in the makeup of the session, which now includes some open source vendors and a group of library practitioners.  I'm not sure 15 people and 3 hours is the best way to go, but traditions change slowly.

I will do my best to synthesize what I hear here in a follow-up post.

So what?

|
CommentsComments (1) | Bookmark or Share Bookmark or Share
Mr Banks.jpgWhether or not I had young children, I think my favorite movie line would still be from Mary Poppins, where the father, George Banks says to his wife, "Winnifred, please!  Kindly do not cloud the issue with facts."

I've been thinking lately about "business intelligence"--the other "BI" that isn't Bibliographic Instruction (if I start blogging about Bibliographic Instruction, please shoot me).  My simplistic version of this is how do libraries turn simple reports in actual business intelligence?  From a technical standpoint, I have one answer--include more network effect into the data, e.g. how many libraries have this book? or how much budget does this other peer library have in their physical sciences budget?  But from a philosophical standpoint, this is much harder.  I call it the "so what" question. 

Vendor:  So, you're ERM will tell you which titles you can transmit via ILL and what your pay per use is based on those integrated COUNTER statistics.
Librarian (to vendor): cool.
Librarian (to library): so what?

Maybe I won't cancel that serial title ever.  Maybe that publisher will never change its mind about resource sharing.  Are we clouding the issue with facts?

A report is just a report.  Doing something with it makes it business intelligence.  When you gather all the information, so what?  Or, to drop another movie quote I love, I will use Sean Connery from The Untouchables.  Delivered with a dying breath, "What are you prepared to do?"

About the Author

Andrew K. Pace

I am Executive Director for Networked Library Services at OCLC. I am also a past President of LITA. On occasion, I am known for pontificating "on stage, in writing, and via the web" on a variety of issues important to libraries.

More »

Find In A Library

Search for an item in libraries near you:
WorldCat.org »