LibraryTechtonics

What John said. And then some.

Set some fires this year . Tell me where they are, so I can keep myself warm by the glow. ;D

I kinda do. I kinda think that putting the right librarians in an intellectual pressure cooker for two days really could yield something wicked innovative.

I just came off the most intense two days of thinking in my life, and I did it for *fun*. I joined Codex Bodley, a team that regularly competes in the annual MIT Mystery Hunt, and spent the better part of 48 hours between two MIT classrooms full of really smart, creative, geeky people (there were a few bathroom breaks, a nap on a classroom floor, and a few trips for food). I must say, it was the most amazing time. I had never met most of these people (except Jessamyn, who was an awesome team ringleader/phone operator/wiki wrangler, and my husband), and yet we were all having a good time working towards a single purpose: solve the puzzle, and hopefully win the game. And boy were we productive, we came in 3rd place out of 37 teams!

So imagine something like Startup Weekend, a sort of MIT Mystery Hunt with practical market applications, but for librarians (yes, it’s selective and creative quoting, but it really brings the idea home):

Have you ever wondered what a group of highly talented and motivated people could accomplish in a weekend?… A unique three-day experience… brings the best and brightest people together in a local office space to select the concept, break into teams, and develop… come together and incubate… from concept to completion in just 54 hours.

I *love* it. This is one of the many ways to apply a mod or fix to our somewhat broken conference model, where only the people who can afford the travel, expenses, and time off get to attend large conferences that end up being circuses that are hard to really learn from. It’s got a local feel, which makes it perfect for library networks, state associations, or regional associations, and a great way to realize *and* tap into local talent. It’s not about politics, because, well, 54 hours is way too short a time to complete a project and worry about politics. And, while it’s an innovative model in and of itself, it forces innovation by limiting time and focusing concentration. I’d say throw in some new media people, tech geeks, and marketing people to work with the librarians, and it’s a golden prospect.

Can’t you just imagine how hot it would be to come out of a weekend with a fully-formed program (or, for the skeptical readers, a draft of one)? Or a ready-to-box marketing campaign? Or a pitch for money, or a plan for relationship building with the community? I think it could be fun as well as productive. Heck, if you could get a sponsor and a prize on this, it’d be even more enticing, but even the concept by itself is awesome.

How would you do it?

I’m not one to dismiss the usefulness and market potential of the Kindel. However, I don’t think it’s a book panacea… libraries and consumers have been down the digital book reader path before, a few times, actually. Perhaps now the digital gadget climate is just right for people to go for a Kindel, or a Sony Reader, or something like that. But I really see it as somewhat of a niche market, like school kids who would no longer need to carry around 50+lbs of books, or crazy avid readers who don’t use any other technology in their lives and don’t want to pack 10 books for vacation.

Here’s what I’ve been thinking: instead of a specialized gadget, go with the gadgets that people already own. What I’ve seen with friends who have recently acquired shiny gadgetry is that they’re looking for the most comprehensive pocket toy humanly possible: phone, web, calendar, music, notes, emails, news, books, you name it, in a 3″x5″ or smaller package. I see potential for library innovation here somehow, by offering services that download to mobile phones, the same way we should really be implementing notifications and reference in happy mobile phone-friendly formats in areas where the service would be viable (good coverage for multiple carriers, multiple patron audiences showing interest, that sorta thing).

Even just promoting free services like LibriVox, Podiobooks (also great for self-published audiobooks), and myriad ebook download services shows that we’re recognizing the needs of this community, and making the effort to direct them to free services, much like we would in our brick-and-mortar libraries. I’m planning on teaching a class on Podiobooks in a few months — since a recent survey of patrons about classes showed there was interest in such a service — so I’ll let you know how it goes. If you’re already doing something, anything, with these services, as individuals or in your libraries, I’d love to hear about it.

Anticipating the next step ahead (I’m guessing this is already happening in the US), as we as librarians should be doing, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more creative writing on cell phones. It’s happening in Japan, and it’s a very cool. I know that I’m writing and publishing blog posts from my Blackberry (you can even install the WordPress Mobile Edition plugin to access your blog through a much friendlier mobile interface), are people in your community doing it? Do you think they would? Have you asked? Are you doing it?

Innovation starts with fresh voices, fresh thinking, paradigm shifts, and other fun things like that. If you want to start innovating, you need to get out of your element, and look at things from new perspectives.

I have Nate Hill to thank for the link to Steven Bell’s post on how 2008 might actually be the Year of Innovation for libraries, and not, as Nate says, “not just the year of ‘innovation’ being the buzzword for business as usual.” I love that Steven points to articles in this post that aren’t in library journals or on library/librarian blogs, it’s out there in the nether-ether, that place from whence actually new things come. I spend at least half of my time playing out there, so it’s refreshing to see that stuff in here, inside the all-to-closed environtment of the library sphere.

Nate Hill (I have Linda Braun to thank for pointing me to Nate, he’s wicked smart, you should read him) puts forth a sort of charge to YALSA librarians in his post reflecting on ALA, but I believe there are other bits and pieces in his post that can serve as an Innovation Year charge to librarians everywhere, such as:

• “The patrons define public library services, not the librarians.” Remember that when you’re developing services, technology or otherwise. I add, “Get over yourselves, it’s not about you,” for emphasis
• “[O]rganizational structure must be consistent with policy for an institution to remain lean, agile, and adaptable to new ideas and change. ” Those of you who attended the RI continuing education event know that Linda, Casey, and I all emphasized being nimble and agile in many ways, and this is one of them.
• “[O]ffer the materials these patrons are interested in, in the format they prefer, and we will make our libraries convenient for them to access.” Stay in touch with your patrons, the way a small business would stay in touch with loyal customers, and bring new customers into the fold. It’s getting out there and really interacting with your patrons, and it isn’t waiting behind the desk for them to come to you.
• “[O]ffer programs, exhibitions, lectures, and concerts relevant to their interests.”

He summarizes brilliantly with:

Put as simply as possible: a 15 year old, a 27 year old and a 52 year old have strikingly different interests and needs, libraries need to recognize that and respond.

How is this innovative? How is this different from the Library 2.0 of 2007? Essentially, there needs to be less “playing at” it, talking about it, and faking it, and *way* more actually doing it. It also means that if you know how to do it, you get out there and help those who don’t know how, and diversifying your methods.

This year should be about getting outside the way we’ve always done it, for n00bs and seasoned techies alike, no one is exempt. Don’t just blog or go to conferences, make lunch dates, present (for free, even!) to local library organization committees or even just nearby colleagues, make the effort at face-to-face interaction and/or online audio/visual interaction that applications like Skype, TalkShoe, and Mogulus have to offer. Reach those people who don’t read “The Blogs,” and get to know them so that you can help them get to know the patrons.

If nothing else, bring in new players from other industries. I learned, and continue to learn, so much from my Boston Media Makers, Social Media Club Boston, Social Media Breakfast, and Twitter peeps. Imagine what can you learn from your local non-librarian groups! Heck, if you don’t have one, start one, because, well, it’s innovative.

Last, but not least, pay attention to those who play, especially if they’re new at it, and they’re not just there for the job. Isabelle Fetherston recently started a new blog called Play 2.0, on the cusp of the new year. Her professional focus is on providing services to older adults, but she’s also in it for the play factor, and from my experiences communicating with her, she’s really coming at it from the perspective of the user *first*, then from the library perspective, which is a super thing to observe. Keep an eye on her, I think it’ll be a fun learning experience to watch and share in via the blog.

Innovators are like sharks, they’re always hungry and they just keep going. There is no getting comfortable and talking the same thing over and over. No more second-hand knockoffs or bad implementations. Get out there and build something new and relevent: Innovate in 2008!

Reflecting on my ALA Midwinter 2008 experiences, I find that I’m running up against the same issues I’ve seen before, but haven’t quite been able to articulate, about new technologies and libraries. I had a really good time talking out these issues with the likes of John Klima and Heidi Dolamore at conference, as well as with my helpful husband, and I think I’ve narrowed it down to a specific seed problem: context.

I find that, when I talk about technology and social software with new media peeps (because, you know, general technology and social software can be the same, but can also be separate topics), there is a deep level of reasonably assumed and understood cultural context, especially since many of these people are helping to build and grow the social software and technology of today and tomorrow.

However, when I discuss the same topics with librarians, there are only a handful who really have the proper knowledge context to discuss the issues without having to backtrack and explain. I find that even librarians who get the idea of social networking sites, social media creation, mashups, sharing, gadgetry, don’t quite have the cultural understanding behind the technologies in discussion. However, it’s very difficult to add the context to a blog post of ideally front-loaded content without making it super long and cumbersome. Thus, my writer’s block on the subject.

This is why, whenever I speak on the topic of social software, I emphasize culture. How and why a specific audience uses something is more important than how you want to apply it, essentially. Case in point is the session I blogged from Saturday morning for PLA on social networking and reference. In their efforts to perform “outreach,” librarians thought it was a good idea to try to figure out how to get around Facebook’s built-in messaging system… which was trying to prevent them from essentially spamming Facebook users. People who understand Facebook’s user culture know that this is *bad* and it shouldn’t be done, but these librarians thought they were doing a good, clever thing by trying to circumvent the system.

Beth Evans also presented in the same program, and mentioned that she was encouraging all users to “friend” the library. I know that there are other librarians who are encouraging users to “friend” them as individuals, and who “friend” everyone back. I don’t think that all librarians have considered the social networking and relationship ramifications of doing this (I’ve touched on this topic before): is their account just for work, or are they using it for work and personal sharing? Are they sharing the same information with all of their “friends”? Do they only log in from work? When they log in from home, do they really want to be at “work” on their profile as well? Are librarians contributing to the decline in value of the real-world meaning of friend by encouraging everyone to just add them indiscriminantly, or adding people back just to be nice? What does nice mean for the future of social networking?

I was in the middle of drafting this post when I saw Kate Sheehan’s post float up as a tweet on Twitter. I commented that her paraphrase of me is spot on, as this post reflects, and further eggs me on to say that librarians need to study the fine art of anthropology when it comes to social networking. That’s the true key to user-centered design in the library world: it doesn’t start with us and our wants and needs, it starts with them. As I paraphrased David Lankes from the Saturday presentation:

As librarians, you shouldn’t “define your mission by cool features, do it by core principles,” thinking carefully about how and why people use these online spaces. We need to stop chasing all of the innovators and making second-hand copies of everything, and really create something innovative to meet our patrons needs.