Bakker's Blog

A New Goal

Forget the dreams of revolutionizing medical libraries, never mind the vision of fostering real collaboration and information sharing through the use of technology to deliver information at the point of need and make new connections between people and networks of information - i have a new goal. 
Bring the Tom Collins back to nyc. 
Have you had one?  well, they are a Lovely summer cocktail.  but it is shockingly difficult to find a bartender who knows how to make one.  And - buy the mix so you can mix your own after work cocktail?  Don't waste your time on the upper east side.  6 liquor stores and 4 grocery stores later - no mix.  i know it's a simple drink - a little simple syrup, a little lemon juice, gin, club soda and a cherry if you're into garnishes.  but really- at the end of the day, unscrewing the caps of 2 bottles is quite enough; the thought of squeezing a lemon over my most recent paper cut just lacks that after-work-drink appeal.  Or maybe i can finagle a Cleaver thing, except this time June (that's me) goes out to work, and Ward has her made-from-scratch Tom Collins waiting with a smile when i get home from the office.

It's nice to have a new goal. 

The lure of profit

Recently a friend of mine whose world is and always has been non-profit (healthcare, research) has been dabbling in consulting.  He is lured by the Siren's call of a more tangible recognition and compensation for his efforts, namely - a fattening bank account.  In the recent weeks, I have walked the wide, freshly painted halls of a healthcare software company, sat in their comfy chairs in the graciously decorated collaborative spaces and partook of their abundant wireless bandwidth, and hear the faint call of that Siren myself. 

It took me a few weeks to return to my previous mental place - that at the end of the day, I need to feel that what I'm doing fits in the bigger picture in a way that moves society forward, that helps the community in some way.

Of course, a network contact of mine once heard this mission of mine, and told me to make money first, and get that moral conscience later....

But whatever work we do - at some point that work becomes drudgery, and it is at that point that I call on my place in the 'greater good' to get me through.  So, it works for me - but I wouldn't complain if it came with a competitive salary. 

Librarians exist outside of libraries

I take pride in my chosen profession - Ich ben ein  librarian.  It took me a few years post-bachelors to commit to the field and I don't regret it.  Currently I do not work in a library.  I see the inside of my institution's library barely more than once a month.  However, much of my work is still very much in line with what I want to do, and if I were just in a library, it would easily be considered 'library work.' 
My point is this - analyzing the organization of information and organizing information in a way that fosters the transfer of information and knowledge (including studying how people work and teaching people to optimize their work to enable better knowledge transfer)  should not be unique to the confines of a library.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say it should be an essential, integral part of a lot of work -including IT.  Today, IT isn't about the limitations of systems, it's about developing systems to meet the user needs (not the other way around).  And that is the work of a librarian. Designing systems to maximize the efficiencies of how people instinctively organize information married to  the enhancements of the processing capacity of technologies and the dramatically extended reach of networks should involve people who understand those patterns as well as the people who understand the capacity of technology.  

I suppose this point is in line with many earlier posts about the need for librarians to reach outside the walls of libraries to work with other groups, particularly information technology.  I guess I am now looking at it after stepping out of the confines of those walls. 

Back Again

It has been a very long time since I have been posting.  I am no longer working in a library, but I am still very much an academic medical librarian.  I am working in an IT department now.  There are a lot of reasons why I made this transition, some big and some small.  It was also not that there weren't opportunities to move up in libraries.  In fact, I had practically the dream job (right boss, right position, almost right leeway to explore) but i said no, but more on that crazy decision later. 

Basically, I just wanted to get myself going again. 
so - hope there are some of you still out there. 

Maybe I was Wrong

As you know, I've have been firm in my thinking that libraries need to be evolving.  There are many people who think that libraries are becoming marginalized and in short order will be unnecessary.  One way I want health sciences libraries to evolve is to get involved in new areas such as informatics in order to stay a relevant part of health care and education.  Sure, there are some libraries that dabble in the surface of these areas, a few library schools that offer a class or two, and a little lip service paid to it at professional meetings - but by in large there is very little movement in this direction and a lot of resistance to changing the traditional role and activities of libraries.  Often these can be signs of an upcoming significant shift in a profession, and that is what I hoped was the case:  That it will be rough on the early adopters, but librarianship would not become marginalized and remain a vibrant profession by evolving.  That librarians will focus on  to how information is being organized and used today and librarianship will remain a field that needs and utilizes professionals. 
But...maybe I was wrong.  Information technology is changing so quickly today that if we want to evolve with the trends, we need to change - now.  And as a group, we are not changing.  More than that, many are holding back those who want to change.  As a group, we are vehemently resisting change.  We might be turning into one of those professions that have strict education and training requirements that are unnecessary and useless for our work.  But maybe that is okay.  Maybe I should stop fighting it. 

The world of information is changing - and fast - and we are not.  In the health sciences, our positions are being replaced by paraprofessionals or being eliminated altogether - and often for good reason.  There is no need to pay a professional salary for paraprofessional, repetitive work (and so much of what we do is just that).  So, maybe I was wrong, maybe we shouldn't change the profession and just let health sciences libraries continue down the road they now seem honestly content to travel.  As for those of us who did not get into this field for that road...well - maybe it's time to find another road.  Go where we are wanted and our work is useful and used, not where it is discarded as a new fad and a passing phase of the inexperienced.  Get into informatics, which the majority of librarians seem all too eager to separate out so much so that it is a completely separate field.  Or get into education, begin to use our knowledge of adult learning theory to teach.  Or get into real IT, where systems are built around how information is needed and used (sometimes), and not how a small group think people should be using it. 

I guess what I'm saying is - maybe I was wrong.  I usually push too hard on a lot of stuff, but maybe this is something that shouldn't be pushed at all.  Maybe it's like pushing librarians to become booksellers too - it just doesn't work for the people in the field.  What do you think? 

Case-based Management

A little while ago, I brought up case-based learning and my dislike of case-based management.  I often hear colleagues in the field lament that this management style is used so often, particularly from the 'young ones' (if you know me, you know I hate that expression).  Mulling it over a bit, I think it is often a knee-jerk reaction of the veterans of the field who see it all as cyclical (which naturally makes me wonder and worry if I too will become like that as I gain veteran status).  This knee-jerk reaction so quickly becomes a polarizing one, and when used repeatedly results in bitterness and deteriorating morale.  I have wandered around organizations where the veteran leaders carry the "we've done it before, it didn't work then and it won't work now - the old way is the only way" flag like a banner, and the constant refrain from the troops becomes "what's the point of trying anything?"  Oooh - not good on so many levels, right?  But ask those same veteran leaders if they believe in case-based management and I'd bet good money that they would claim to be strictly against it, reminiscing of the time when they were 'bleeding-edge' and fighting the good fight of progress.*  So, what can we do when we encounter this? 

Well, if I had the ultimate answer for that question, I'd be getting paid for this blog.  It is probably true that many approaches to things are cyclic (the technology/implementation/etc. may change, but the core approach is cyclic).  It is glaringly obvious in management approaches - go back to the management books of the '30s and '40s and you will find current popular trends like Lean Management and Six Sigma under a different name.  But here is what changes - the environment.  The context changes.  It does.  Doubt me?  Go visit your oldest relative and ask them about the younger generation (Oy! These kids today!  When I was young we never...) - the environment is constantly changing.

Since I have yet to find even the most die-hard case-based-manager-in-practice support it in theory, you might be able to show them that the environment is different.  Context changes, and what didn't work before might work now.  It's a hard sell, but with some good research and robust outcome indicators, it just might be sell-able.  For those of you/us who keep running into the problem, maybe try a little empathy to make it easier for yourself.  If it is a veteran's knee-jerk response, remember where these leaders are coming from - it is not easy to relinquish your hold on being new and innovative and to recognize that times are changing and your role in the environment is no longer to be up on what is new and great but rather to prep the new 'generation' of library leaders.  And who knows, while you are earnestly trying to see things from their perspective, you might just find the magic bullet approach to try your new idea. 

After all, times - they are a-changin'.   

*No really, will someone bet me good money?  'Cause I could really use a new laptop.  :)

Libraries and IT - Building a Partnership

There was a good comment to a post on Library/IT that really succinctly brought out a viewpoint that is probably the common approach to IT relationships.

Why shouldn't librarians treat IT as vendors?

First, I like the way my director put it: IT departments are enablers - but I think we are talking about essentially the same concept.  (Note:  all this is from the perspective of academic health centers.  I fully recognize that different industries and different libraries must have different visions and different approaches to IT.  One size does not fit all).  Yes, IT's core role is as an enabler, particularly in health sciences.  So why do I think we need more than: "Why not learn enough IT to be able to (1) make your needs clear to IT people, (2) know what is currently possible, and (3) smell bull-whacky?" Well, because there is such great potential for libraries, for IT and most importantly for our customers (a.k.a. users).  Yes, to start - we can follow Willem's advice to learn enough to meet the three objectives, and that would put most of us in a better position than we currently occupy; but I want more.  Libraries and IT have an opportunity to join together to create something that not only enhances both individual fields, but also can bring new depth, connections and knowledge to those we serve. 

Libraries.  Libraries have a rich history of organizing and disseminating information - information and knowledge management and fostering knowledge growth.*  Throughout history, libraries have evolved to meet current technology in a way that maximizes the above mentioned goals/mission.  Today, information and knowledge transfer have reached new levels of integration with the technology of their dissemination.  Information is no longer just about the words printed on scrolls or books, information transfer happens through the method we use to deliver that information.  Finding information isn't about finding the right book, it is about having the right IT tools at the right time.  To say IT is just the next step after books in this aim is to deny the huge potential that IT presents.  Delivering information at the point of need calls on so many particulars, from having the information, to the tools to find the information amidst the exploding sea of data, the user knowledge of utilizing the systems, and delivering not only the information but access to the information where it is needed, when it is needed.  What libraries lack is a true integration that enables the best use of information and creates underutilized information and lost knowledge from less than ideal information and knowledge management. What was good enough for yesterday just is not good enough for today.  Information and information needs have changed. 

IT.  Information technology is about enabling information transfer in a way that is usable by its customers.  It is about delivering the data at the point of need.  IT creates the essential pathways and tools necessary for data transfer.  What IT lacks is the bigger picture vision of information and knowledge management and creating good information users, and application of that vision to its systems and pathways.  What libraries can bring is that vision, an important perspective on knowledge transfer and information organization from the end user perspective and the ability to teach end users. 

What users can get out of this is a richer, deeper information base that more fully meets their needs at the point of need.  While I have not quite got a clear big picture on the totality of ways this can truly be better than the current modus operandi,  I do see particular areas that can benefit greatly, like internal operational knowledge bases and institutional repositories (especially in research organizations) and educational tools.

I want to keep developing this vision, so you may hear of it from time to time, and of course, I'd love to hear what you think. 

*Yes, there are the aspects of public good, fostering democracy and public discourse, intellectual property, etc.  I am not saying these are the only things, just the ones on which I am focusing. 

the Four Frames

At ACRL/Harvard we focused on looking at things through 4 frames: Structural, Human Resources, Political, and Symbolic (vision).  We took a quick test to see where we are, and I landed fairly even in three and low in political (gee whiz - no surprise there).  But more than just learning where I come from, I learned a new way to break down situations and work relationships.  We want to be balanced in the 4 frames since every situation has different parts, however we should recognize that most of us instinctively turn to one of the frames.  For me, it's human resources followed closely by symbolic.  So, what do you do in situations that have relationships and/or situations that are strong in another frame (especially say - your weakest one)?  Not sure...when I figure that one out, I'll have managed to dramatically reduce my work stress.  And I'll chuck it all and go on the lecture circuit.

But more than looking at where people come from, looking at situations through the lens of these 4 frames provides a tremendous amount of insight.  Sure, there are dozens of these types of frameworks out there, and I'm sure many of them are just a good, but the point is having a structured way of approaching situations.  I habitually try to look at all the different angles of a situation but I miss some, and more than that - I have a tough time putting them together in a way that leads me to a better decision.  Well - this way is providing a lot more help.  It isn't necessarily making any of my decisions or actions easier, but I feel more clear and confident about them.  By analyzing the situation and the people involved from 4 different perspectives (and forcing yourself to put the elements within the frames) helps to see things clearer and hopefully choose an action plan.  It also helps us know how to sell an idea - if you know where someone is coming from, you hit on the elements in that frame, and bam! it resonates for them.  I have always had a tough time selling to people who operated very strongly from a political frame - well now I hope to have better luck. 

The book we used as the base is Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal.  I definitely recommend it, it was an easy read and has some real insight with plenty of common sense applicability (however, it really started to click in the class, halfway through the week). 

Ethics in the workplace

Academic ethics, business ethics, general everyday societal ethics - many of the principles at play in all of these call for the same type of behavior.  They boil down to what many call morals - honesty, integrity, respect for others, et cetera.  Things like not passing off as your own/stealing colleagues' work, fairly evaluating people, not spreading false rumors, you know - basic qualities we are supposed to have learned at a young age. 

So what happens in a place that selectively adheres those ethics, depending on the person/people involved? How about a supervisor using a professional's ideas and passing them off as their own while keeping it a secret from the originator? This seems like a clear violation of core academic ethics, so what to do?  Recently a case like this was brought to my attention and it got me thinking.  The person involved is really struggling to meet her objectives of working on collaborative projects, and is repeatedly met with this obstacle.  My initial response - call a spade a spade and bring it up as the serious ethical issue it is.  As my new friends from Harvard taught me, check your ego at the door about it being your grand idea, and look at it as unethical and contrary to the best interest of the group.  Ah, but then the person made a great point - in the political structure at play, it might very well mean losing her job.  So - again, what to do?  Do you sacrifice your job for the greater good?  Will it make a difference if you do?  Sure there is something (and something really important) to taking the high road, but I understand the thought of being jobless...and income-less.  There are not a lot of good jobs out there.  I kind of hate losing my idealism (and the fact that I'm torn about joblessness versus doing the right thing seems to me a loss of some of my doe-eyed idealism), but gosh - the rent is due every month. 

We all know there are a lot of organizations like this out there.  They cycle through good people like there is a revolving door.  But should those places just be left alone to slip further and further downhill?  As a librarian, aren't we about the greater good, idealism, good citizenship and all that jazz?  If it makes a huge impact on your life, but makes no impact on the organization - do you play ball or just say no?  So many questions, so few answers!  In all honesty - I couldn't give a lick of good advice on this one, but I would love some. 

Doing things the Harvard Way

As many people know, Harvard likes case-based study.   While I am not sure I would want an entire degree taught/learned this way - I really enjoyed it.  Putting a case under a microscope provides an opportunity to see the practical application of theory.  As I was sitting back in a class on evaluation and measurements, I began to think about something we like to do in libraries - use cases as the rule.  "Oh, we tried that once - it didn't work, it will never work"  "I had a customer say he missed seeing books, in the renovation we need to move all the books to the front" "X got missed on Monday, this is clearly a serious problem and must be addressed with the Director"  This kind of 'case-based' management happens a lot.  But here is what we don't do  - we don't look at the context, analyze the entire situation, and apply consistent framework of evaluation.  So, I have always strongly resisted using single cases as a method for making decisions, and I still think it has a tendency to be a bad approach when not used as an academic exercise; however - maybe there is something to using cases.  I do love being wrong on these things (no really - I like being wrong on this kind of stuff!  It means there is a chance for me, and a whole new perspective to keep in mind). 

Note: there is going to be more on the vision thing soon.  After some great dissenting comments and a conversation with my director about this - my mind is still focused on this. 

Vision

Still here at Harvard living in the dorms while I solve all my leadership issues, and I have had some serious reflection time.  (Yes, i am supposed to be disconnected.  shh...don't tell anyone i'm posting). The framework we are learning about has 4 frames from which to approach any situation, and one of them is Symbolic, or vision.  I have always strongly felt that vision is a key element of leadership for me.  Vision has played strongly in my leading and being led, and assessments this week confirmed that.  Okay - so it's important.  And my point is??
I have been having conversations about my last post on my vision for the future of libraries and IT, and I have been again asked an interesting question - Why don't I leave libraries for IT?  Well, there are a lot of reasons, but what I am finding is one of them is vision.  IT so often lacks a deep shared vision.  It is easy for us to have a big hairy vision of what we do in libraries and frame it in this beautiful, meaningful context.   Now, all we need to do is act on it....

You know my vision, and I truly think libraries are in a fantastic position - we have the opportunity to transform ourselves to be centers of Information and Knowledge Management by shifting our focus away from our traditional role as collectors of information towards a hub of information dissemination and knowledge transfer.  This is what I see as the future I want for us.  I see the future as an intimate integration of what is now IT and libraries to form a new force that actively reaches out and enables innovation among our constituency. 

What form does this take?  I think that depends on the context - and that means it might be different for each library and it also means it will absolutely be different throughout the future for all of us, a constantly moving target.  Yes - it probably means less books. Yes - it means our needed skills and knowledge will change.  Yes - our comfort zones are gone.  Yes - it means we need to do our research to know what this should look like, and then act on it!  and Yes - it means we will bring significant, deep and unique value. 

Off to my last day of classes at Harvard.  I've almost got the accent down. 

Off to Harvard

This week I am attending the ACRL/Harvard Institute Leadership Institute for Academic Librarians courtesy of an AAHSL Leadership Scholarship.  I am very much looking forward to spending a week looking at the big picture of libraries with a group of enthusiastic librarians committed to the future of libraries.  In preparation, we are reading Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal, and I am starting to get excited about the week's lectures and discussions.  It is going to be a very intense week, but I hope to come back from it as enthusiastic about my profession as I am after MLA. 
There is such tremendous opportunity in librarianship right now, and one of the things I hope to get out of this week is a better grasp on how I can help maximize some of those opportunities from my current place in the profession.  With leadership on the mind this week, I had a discussion with a good friend about the potential for the future of libraries, particularly within the larger world of information technology and knowledge management.  Some institutions have the library and IT positioned in such a way that the two groups can work together to create the kind of information systems that not only create new mutually beneficial relationships between the groups, but also fulfill each discipline's mission of creating, providing and disseminating information more completely, thus enabling deeper knowledge and better innovation in their institution.  Social softwares, institutional repositories and other such systems are only the tip of the iceberg of the ways that IT and libraries can work together in new and exciting ways.  I think now is the time for libraries to grab this opportunity and lead the charge to better information systems and knowledge management, and this week I hope to learn more about leading libraries in that direction. 

Being Analog in a Digital World

Those who know me know that I love the tech stuff, I love working in a field where investigating and using advances in technology is a daily affair, not something we do if we have time.  I love finding ways to make my life easier and more interesting through social software.  But when it comes down to it, it just doesn't replace the good ol' analog world of face to face relationships. I was recently talking to a friend of mine about our approaches to doing daily business; we both often prefer to deal with issues by talking to the person (instead of going back and forth with a string of emails).  We have found that a simple question or miscommunication can be solved in no time with a little face to face time (oh - and yes, with a follow up email with action items and take away points).  Further, I think the face to face relationship is an integral part of creating new working relationships (check out this post from How to Change the World).  This got me thinking about the integration of technology in our relationships. 

Work applications of social software is a hot topic right now, and deservedly so.  There is so much potential for  adding transparency to our work and idea development, propelling innovation, and bringing together a more diverse group of people to enhance whatever we do.  What's more, social software can create better solutions for less perfect methodologies.  Michelle Boule (a.k.a Jane) has a post on the agony of meetings and replacing face to face with web meetings.  She thinks that face to face meetings lack transparency, keeps the oligarchy in power and is not the most productive way to work.  Well, I agree and disagree.  Yes, there is a lack of transparency in much that goes on in the workplace and in our profession, and many times I think it is to our detriment (check out T. Scott's post on transparency).  And yes, I have sat through countless meetings that were -at best- not productive, and meetings that keep decision making in the hands of the few without the valuable influence or insights of the many [now - got to say, there is a time and place for everything, including decisions being made without getting weeks of input, and I might not always know when those times are].  But I think that face to face meetings are still an essential part of what we do.  When you have the right group of people working together, being in the same space can produce fantastic results.  We are social creatures by nature and feeding off each other's energy, enthusiasm and ideas can produce something that might not occur in an asynchronous environment.  Still, there is a time and place for all meeting types, and often a place for combining them.  I like to combine face to face with email, wikis, etc. to provide that crumb trail of the process, refine the brainstorming and hopefully enhance whatever it is we are seeking to accomplish. Technology is most often a tool to reach our goals, not the goal itself. 

Mark Funk, the MLA President, has made his theme Only Connect! and social software is naturally a big part of this year's buzz.  This is fantastic.  I think we are no where near maximizing the possibilities of technology for connecting with each other, with potential partners in other disciplines, our customers, and those people we want to be our customers.  And what is more - I am very excited to work on maximizing the possibilities not only in my own workplace but throughout the profession.  But I am not approaching this year's mounting fervor for Web 2.0 by casting off the analog connections of personal relationships to find greener pastures (heck I live in NYC - green pastures are hard to come by); rather I am seeking to enhance the relationships I have and continue to make new ones using all the tools we have around us as well as those to come.  What is that balance?  I don't know, but I am looking forward to trying it all out.