Bakker's Blog

Real collaboration via technology

I will most likely be focusing on collaborative tools for a little while.  If you're a follower, you know it's long been an area of interest for me, and recently I had the opportunity to work with some tools that brought it back to the forefront of my work (lucky me!)

To refresh - I think that true collaboration can be fostered by the innovative use of technology.  I think that information sharing and network building and reinforcing can be fostered by the innovative use of technology.  I do not think that the use of technology can create collaboration or information sharing (different than data sharing!), but it can foster, create pathways for, enable, enhance, etc collaboration and information sharing.  

For those of us who have spent their careers using technology to enhance networks and share information among  them, there are a lot of questions that have been coming up as of late:

• Collaboration is a big buzz word these days, but what does industry mean by it? 
• There are a lot of 'collaboration tools' out there, but how are people using them?  And how should they be using them?
• Do these new collaboration tools really get the job done?  
• How far can technology really take us?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks to broad collaboration? (yep, there are drawbacks). 

So, stay tuned.  My outlet at work for this stuff is drying up, so expect to be seeing more of it here. 

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? 

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. 

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. 

Library as Place - creationism vs. evolution

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently had a story on the enormous Ohio State Library renovation ($108 million renovation and new construction).  "Library as Place" has been a hot topic in libraries in general and in Health Sciences libraries as well.  The story was like so many others, a library renovation geared towards creating more user space and less collection space - nothing remarkably different.  What struck me was the comment to the story:

"a library with fewer books??? sounds like fighting for peace or screwing for virginiity — makes no freaking sense!!"

Were libraries created a few thousand years ago just as they are now, and to mess with that would be sacrilegious?   Were libraries created in fully formed perfection?  Umm - I like the idea that libraries are about information and knowledge - and if that comes in the form of books - great, audio - great, the Internet and computers - great, pantomime and interpretive dance - less great, but still.  Sure, I still see a place for the hallowed halls of books, but I think there's room for all of it.  Survival of the fittest - libraries (and librarians!)  must evolve to survive.