Planning to customize your new cloud-based system via the APIs? Proceed carefully..

In my work with libraries, I’m increasingly hearing and being asked about concerns with the new “open” systems and their Application Programming Interfaces (API’s) which many libraries use to meet local needs.  I’m afraid these concerns are only going to increase as more of the profession moves toward cloud-computing or hosted solutions. Specifically, the concerns I’m hearing are:

1. A lack of adequate or usable API documentation.   I’ve been working with automation systems for libraries since the early 80’s and complaints about software documentation are as constant as the rising and setting of the Sun.  These complaints aren’t without reason.   Many libraries will, as a result of the move to cloud-computing systems, be more likely to use APIs as a way of providing needed customizations for their library members.  This requires greatly increased dependence on API documentation and it’s overall usability.    Library staff APIs from suppliers that are difficult to use, require training to use or that are overly complex are, to put it bluntly, examples of poor programming.  Organizations developing these APIs should have internal standards that have to be met and their Quality Control group should be checking them in order to avoid these problems.  Ultimately, if this isn’t done, your library is going to absorb a substantial cost overhead in lost development time, not to mention staff frustration, that no library can afford in this economy.  Solution?  Before signing on to buy or upgrade to a new proprietary system, demand to see the API documentation and have the supplying organization give you access to an API of your choice.  Ask one of your staff to do some test development using that API.  If s/he comes back to your desk babbling and looking crazed, you’ll know to look at other systems.  If your person comes back smiling and eager to show you what they’ve done, you’re on the path to the right solution.
2. The API/Code-extension developer community doesn’t seem to really be a community. Many organizations and their customers, in moving to what they’re calling “open systems”, are engaging in more marketing than real change.  While a proprietary vendor may be quick to adopt the broader terminology of the open source community, including the word “community”, there may not be substance behind that adoption. OSS developer communities understand that part of the obligation they take on as contributors and developers is the need to help provide support for new users entering the community or to help those trying to implement or work with developed code.  These communities have their own codes of conduct and recognition and the bottom line is that they usually work well.  You can get support out of a well-run OSS community behind a product.   However, when suppliers of proprietary systems adopt the phrase “developer community” it may not mean the same thing.  They aren’t bound to the same rules as the OSS community. Frequently the code isn’t as openly available because the vendor won’t allow that to happen (check - is it on SourceForge?) or there might be legal restrictions in the contract covering the use of the code contributions, especially if the vendor has supplied them.   Code contributions from customers may not be actively supported by those customers due to other demands on their time.   Or they may feel that the vendor should do this or at least, should not profit in any way from the support they provide. The result is that the support may or may not be anywhere near as good as you’d find in a total OSS community.  Solution?  Check to see if the vendor/supplier offers support for code extensions either on a pay-as-needed basis or as part of a maintenance contract.  Be aware that most will not as their resources are dedicated to other projects, sometimes for years in advance. See if the vendor/supplier will let you examine support requests that have been placed on a listserv or through other communication vehicles they provide.  Verify what the typical response time is and how often such requests go altogether unanswered.  Look at the resulting data and make a fact-based judgment of the results to determine if support is really available and if it will meet your needs.      
3. No pre-notification of upcoming changes to API functionality.  In the case of a locally installed proprietary system a library can wait to upgrade until they’ve rewritten their code extensions to work with the newly revised and delivered API’s.  However, with the increasing move towards cloud computing or hosted proprietary solutions, that control is moving to the hands of the vendor/supplier.  This offers the potential for far more problems.  Solution?  Libraries should, before buying into one of the new cloud-based proprietary solutions, check to see if people from the user community are involved in reviewing API changes before they’re made.  Libraries should also insert into their hosting contracts, language that specifies at least a 90-day notification of changes to the vendor API’s that would affect existing API functionality.  Furthermore, the documentation should be supplied at that same time so that libraries can prepare their code extensions to use it. If the changes are adding new functionality, then the notification is not as critical, although it would still be a good business practice.
4. Contract restrictions in API usage are unspecified, unclear or can be modified without notification. I understand that many supplier organizations are particularly sensitive to the issue of their APIs being used by their competitors in developing new products or services that will end up competing with the system suppliers offerings.  Yet, I’m not convinced libraries should simply agree to this.  Librarians should have the right to pick from the best available solutions, whoever develops them.  Of course, suppliers/vendors will want to leave usage terms deliberately vague so they can define them as needed.  They might want to restrict usage to non-profit organizations (or if they fear OCLC, they may try to restrict usage to your library staff).  I’m not saying this is right but at least you can understand their desire not to make it easy for their competitors. In some cases, even if the library is the developer, a vendor/supplier might attempt to stop them from developing a competing offering, particularly if the library intends to place the resulting code in open source (that situation is really NOT defensible in my opinion, but it does happen).   It is also the case that many contracts may contain API usage clauses that allow the contractual terms of usage to be modified by the supplier without the consent of the customer.  This is dangerous for libraries and I would advocate it shouldn’t be agreed to under any circumstance.  Solution? Before signing any agreement covering API utilization, make sure the terms are clearly spelled out and that you retain the right to develop whatever applications you wish.  Also, put it in writing that you can share the code you develop with other similar organizations.  If you truly want to foster greater innovation in the market, demand the right for all types of organizations to develop software that use these APIs.  (Note, it would be fair for the vendor to require that those organizations also be supplier of software or services to your organization).  You’ll likely have to fight for this one, but depending on how strongly you feel about innovation and getting the greatest return on your investments, the fight might be worth having.  Finally make sure all these legal terms can’t be modified without your written consent. 
5. The need for standardized API’s.  Depending on the system involved, for example a library management system, you might use the system anywhere from 3-10 years.  Some systems, like discovery or ERM systems might be in place for a shorter time frame.  In virtually all instances and at some point down the road, you’ll likely want to switch to a different supplier/product.   At that time, having the capability to switch all the code extensions you’ve developed from your existing system to the new system will be dependent on one thing – the existence of standardized APIs.   Most vendor/suppliers want to ignore this request or place it into a standards development organization.  There they know the resulting standard will likely be a  “lowest common denominator” because libraries don’t participate in the standards process at a level that allows them to prevent this from happening.  But this is one of those places where libraries need to take hold of their future and define what it is going to look like.  Particularly with the move to cloud based systems.   Solution?  Libraries should insist on standardized API interfaces.  They should join and participate in NISO or other organizations where the standards work is being done to ensure the resulting standards support true transportability of extensions between systems.   If you don’t do this you’re setting yourself up to have to do all the development work over (for no good reason) and you’re penalizing your library users/members with loss of functionality while that happens. 
6. You’re locking yourself to a vendor/supplier and the course they choose.  I’ve written before about “The disintegration and redistribution of the library”.  If you’re not careful with your usage of APIs, you might be aiding and abetting that process.  Think about what would happen if you haven’t done some of what I’ve suggested above and a different organization buys your supplier/vendor?  Or, where would you be if an entirely new administration moves into your suppliers operation?  What if they shut down access to those APIs, substantially modify them or withdraw support altogether?  What if they decide they want to serve your library user/members direct and decide to cripple your library by withdrawing your ability to use these APIs?   Be particularly thoughtful about this when you’re buying your discovery interface from the same firms that supply your content.  I keep pointing out that libraries don’t overall represent a growing market and in most cases libraries are dealing with shrinking budgets.  This makes for a difficult market for vendors/suppliers who are facing owners/shareholders that want to see continual and substantial growth.   As a consequence, they will be forced to look for new, adjacent markets or ways to grow beyond simply serving libraries and one way to do that is go around the libraries.  Think it can’t happen?  I suggest you look at firms like Pearson, McGraw-Hill and others where courses are being bundled with extensive content and offered directly to university provosts, department heads, professors, etc.  All without a library in sight.  Then also consider what is happening with e-books at the moment. So, yes - you bet it can happen. If you’re not careful, you might be signing a contract that will place your library in this position.  Solution?  Get advice, do your due diligence, read relevant background materials and proceed quickly but carefully.  

Ultimately, I still hope we see the day when APIs will largely be replaced and/or supplemented with much easier customization tools, particularly for the cloud-based systems.  For instance, I’m constantly amazed at how simple it is in Google Blogger, to add functionality and totally redo the interface or product functionality by using simple drag-and-drop widgets.   That kind of customization is what librarians should be demanding from their suppliers.  It’s not news that many libraries can’t afford to have or retain good technical programming staff.  The fact that they’re potentially being penalized further by the inability to easily customize their systems in order to meet end-user/member needs adds is not good.  Libraries should join together and speak loudly with a common voice and through a common organization to state their needs with regard to API usage so that these concerns can be addressed.  


(Note: - Want more advice for your library?  Contact me at the CARE Affiliates website)

Understanding context like we've never understood it before

I've long considered the CNI Membership Meetings one of the most important events on my calendar because I rarely leave them without having a serious "wow" moment.  Such was the most recent meeting in Baltimore during the closing plenary session by Phillip Long of the University of Queensland.  In a few brief moments within the talk about "Key Trends in Teaching & Learning" we were shown some of the research that is happening at the Gallant Laboratory at UC Berkeley.  There they have "modeled brain activity elicited by static visual patterns and have reconstructed these patterns from brain activity" and taken it to the next step" by overcoming some earlier limitations in this research.  What this means is that they've now come to the point where they can "reveal how early visual areas (in the brain) represent the information in movies."   They can now decode what the mind recorded.  This is incredible to watch (there are some additional sample videos at the the website that show what is recorded by the brain and, while some are vague and unfocused, some are reasonably sharp.  Plus, as Phillip Long pointed out: It is early in the process so this will only get better).  

It appears that what the research is showing is what the mind records, not  what was actually shown/seen and therefore is subject to all the twists and turns that humans apply to memory.   That is a fascinating study when done, all by itself (the classic case of five people seeing an event, then recounting it, and all five having variances).    However, the questions that result are major:  Are those memories there even when we can't consciously recall them? Can these be recalled whether you want them to be, or not?  (Think about the implications of that one...).   It raises all kinds of issues ranging from legality to ethics to human-machine interfaces to what it will mean for learning.  

However, as librarians this gives a whole new meaning to providing knowledge with context; a huge differentiator for librarianship when compared to other information and knowledge access  services.   As librarians, we often struggle to make sure library users analyze information and knowledge within the context of the time and knowledge in which it was created.  To now be able to see how visual information is recorded in the mind and to ensure that the context is properly provided and understood will give us some incredible insight into how to provide access to information and knowledge.   (Of course the potential for abuse here is large and will require major new ethical boundaries to be defined and implemented to go with this insight).   

I've discussed information filtering and context and the issues surrounding it in a previous post and those remain valid in this visual environment.  However, what I saw at this CNI meeting means that as a profession, librarianship will need to stay on top of this development because the tentacles of this research reach deep into our work and will have major implications for our future both as providers of access to knowledge but also as participants in the creation of new knowledge.   

Steps being taken towards the new bibliographic framework too narrowly focused?

This week the Library of Congress, issued a survey as a next step in their continuing efforts to define the next generation bibliographic framework.  The cover message states:  

The survey is: “..studying the value and use of Library of Congress' bibliographic data and cataloging products. The.. survey results as part of a strategic study to guide its response to this changing environment, supporting the Library in its goal to effectively define its future role, adapt a sustainable financial model, and better serve its mission in the years ahead.” 

"The survey is directed at:  1. managers of cataloging and technical services units 2. catalogers 3. vendors and distributors of bibliographic data and tools”

I’ll admit that in reading this, I continue to worry the focus is too narrow.  I know that Karen Coyle has posted on this previously and again yesterday. Todd Carpenter of NISO has also noted the need for more participants, as have I in a previous post.  


While I think all agree what the Library of Congress is doing is very important and we applaud them for doing it, there remains a concern for all to remember this is important because it represents the chance to define the overall future usability of library bibliographic data across the entire Web.   


To truly enable that, we need to make sure we’re directing requests for input to communities like the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI), and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), as well as a broad number of national libraries from across the international community.  In LC’s original announcement, they noted: 

“The Library of Congress’s process will be fully collaborative.  We will consult our partners and customers in the metadata community, standards experts in and out of libraries, and designers and builders of systems that make use of library metadata.”

If you look at this survey, there truly seems to be some inconsistency between what the statement above says and what this survey is asking (and to be honest, I’m having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what they DO intend to derive from the questions being asked?).   It certainly does not appear to be the case that they want to hear from: a) all the parties interested in using the data or, b) to provide an open dialogue that one would think is needed for a deep understanding of all the possible user needs?  If so, one must question this process.


Like many of you, I fully understand the mission of LC is “..to support the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties and to further the progress of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the American people.”  Understood.  However, the Library of Congress does function, and clearly wants to function, as our de-facto national library.    For instance, note the word “and” in that mission statement when they’re talking about furthering knowledge and creativity for the American people. So if they want to further knowledge and creativity, they have to work towards making library data cleanly and easily integrated across the rapidly unfolding Semantic Web.    


It is also painfully apparent in this call to answer a survey that we’re not being given a clear indication of how this input will factor into the final decisions.   Surveys can have a significant impact on the results or none at all, depending on the weight given the results in the total decision making process.  That weighting needs to be shared with all who are responding so they’ll know if it is even worth their time to respond.


Personally, I believe this very important step deserves wide input from the all the communities I (and others) have mentioned and it needs to be conducted in a way that provides open discussion (in other words, some face-to-face discussions).  The end result should be a clear understanding of the needs of the primary providers and users of library bibliographic data.  Yes, this will cost more to do and it will probably require a number of interested parties to step up and help provide that funding, because I’m sure our Congress will also be too introspectively focused to see or understand the larger needs at play here.  However, it would seem to be a very wise investment with a very good return.


Along this line, I was very encouraged earlier today when I saw that one of the upcoming European Library Automation Group (ELAG) sessions is by Lukas Koster on Linked Library Data in the New Bibliographic Framework  and that they intend to provide a copy of the results to LC.  Bravo!  This is precisely the kind of input LC needs but seems reluctant to gather. Of course, that doesn't mean LC will weigh or use the input.  If that remains the case, then I agree with the closing remarks in Karen’s blog post where she says: 

“If we don't step up to this task, for many years to come we will continue to see library data housed in frameworks and silos that are invisible to most information seekers.  That would indeed be very unfortunate.”  

Very, very unfortunate.

Prevent the stonewalling librarian from becoming the stone anchor on your library

(c)iStockPhoto

(c) iStockPhoto

Introduction


We all know we're facing an ever-increasing pace of change today in life and certainly in libraries.  Library managers are grappling with how to handle these changes while at the same time, trying to instill in their staff the skills, training and confidence to handle new ideas and the related processes and workflows associated with them.


Change management, the process by which managers are taught to cope with this topic, is filled with case studies of the typical problems and methods for resolving them.  Yet, when you consider the amount of change being undertaken in libraries today and the fact that some efforts seem plagued by extreme difficulty while some run smoothly, it seems apparent the techniques are either not well defined or not very easily implemented.  Usually, implementation problems aren’t because of flawed processes or procedures, both of which are easily changed, but rather the problems occur because of the way individuals involved react to the change.


It would be an unusual library, indeed an unusual organization, if some members of the team didn’t resist changes.  Frequently, there is resistance to the point of being a virtual stonewall that appears insurmountable.  Yet, overcoming that resistance is something that management needs to happen in order to keep the organization moving forward.  How can the stonewalling staff member be overcome?  The best answers are either to work with the person to break through their reasons for not wanting to change, or if that is not possible, going around them to implement the change.  While there is a third answer I’ll mention at the end, it really is not an acceptable answer for today’s modern library, although you do see it happening!


Break through the stonewall


Personally, I’m a strong advocate of those change management techniques that focus on implementing new ideas by first working with the individuals involved. Having been involved for decades in the processes of implementing major new systems in all types of libraries, I can honestly say the most successful projects were those that began work with the individuals.  J. Stewart Black and Hal Gregersen endorse this technique, in their excellent book  “It starts with one” where they say: 

“Lasting success lies in changing individuals first; then the organization follows.  This is because an organization changes only as far or as fast as its collective individuals change.”  

I totally agree.  It’s a very powerful statement:  It’s especially powerful in light of their research that showed 50-80% of change initiatives in organizations fail. 


Their book does a great job of outlining how to be successful when performing change management.   So I won’t repeat those techniques here, other than to recommend you read their short, excellent book.  However, I do want to add some thoughts based on my experiences.  


First, choose your words very carefully and thoughtfully when presenting change. As human beings, we inherently know change is inevitable.  Furthermore, we know others often impose it on us, be they colleagues, bosses, organizations or governments.  When we “hear” the word change, we frequently “feel” what we know and what we think is about to be outdated and replaced.  We also realize that if we cannot learn that new way of doing things we might well find ourselves replaced. Understandably that causes concern.  So, let’s try to replace the word “change” in these discussions.  Instead, let’s focus on the perceived benefits that will happen when the new processes and procedures are in place.   


Now the word “benefits”, in my opinion, is often misused.   It will be very useful to prevent that from happening in this discussion, so let’s spend just a moment exploring this concept.  Many times, when someone is describing the outcomes of new process, procedures and outcomes, what they actually end up describing are features. Features are what are owned by the product or organization that makes these processes, procedures and services available.  The outcomes (i.e. the benefits) result from using the features and are owned by the end-user, customer or member of your organization.  This is what the they care about and want to hear about.  For instance, a “cloud computing service” is a feature.  The fact that you, as an end-user of that service, are now benefiting from no longer needing to buy hardware, do software upgrades or worry about power and air conditioning – those are all benefits you obtained from using the feature of software as a cloud computing service.  That’s what matters to you.  A valuable lesson in selling ideas or products is to learn to talk about benefits, not features.  So to successfully sell the idea of change management, use the same rule; talk about the benefits that will result.


Here is an example of what I mean.  In many libraries today, Patron-Driven-Acquisitions (PDA) are being analyzed for adoption.  In order to focus the conversation on benefits, one would need to talk about: a) making the library acquisition process Amazon-like for the members, b) reducing the time from when the member requests a new item be purchased to the time it is in their hands, c) making the member libraries money go further so they can purchase more of precisely what they need and will use.  Moving the discussion to the member/end-user benefits also has the advantage of quickly moving the discussion beyond the “should we even do this?” to the “how are we going to do this?”  Again, the important point here is not to focus on discussing change but to focus on discussing the benefits as a means of getting the needed changes adopted.  


Of course this one step alone will not make a reticent person move forward.  Its goal is simply to lessen their fear and anxiety levels so they too can focus on the positive things that will result.   Beyond that, depending upon the degree of stonewalling they’re performing, here are some other ideas that may need to be used.
  
If the person’s manager is aware of the resistance and is willing to take action, then there are a variety of steps they can take to help the individuals.  This blog post suggests the following techniques:

1. “Assign a coach to the person with daily/weekly/monthly meetings without holding anything back. Give the truth as it is, along with advice for improvement.
2. Recognize that it could be professional arrogance (“I am better than others”) that translates into negative attitude. Introduce them to others who are better and show him the reality.  (Blogger note:  Having them attend a webinar or virtual/actual conferences where successful implementations of the idea are discussed, might be one way to do this.)
3. Put them on a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan). Make it clear why they are on PIP—which is not because of work, but attitude.
4. Assign them away from the “critical” nature of the work, which works at times to demonstrate that they are not irreplaceable. It may moderate their behavior. (Blogger note:  This technique is useful if the person is “tenured” or personnel policies make it very difficult to remove them.)
5. It could also be a genuine case of needing training.”

If those techniques don’t work, then you have to examine the adoption of more difficult steps.


Go around the stonewall


There may be times where you’ll find yourself in a situation where the recalcitrant person’s direct manager/supervisor, typically the library director, will not push the person, or work closely enough with them to bring about the needed adoption of new ideas. If the manager/supervisor is too busy, disengaged or otherwise occupied to do this, the problem can fall on the shoulders of peer level managers.  It shouldn’t but let’s be realistic, it does.  


When this happens, I suggest the management team call a meeting and discuss the status of new ideas being discussed and planned for adoption.  Then, when the stonewalling person (assuming they’re a member of the management team) lists their litany of reasons why it can’t be done (no need, overworked, bad idea, won’t work here, we’ve tried that before), the peers have to jump in and gently apply pressure to examine the reasons and point out the fallacies contained within, or to offer to take over some tasks so that time can be freed up to try the new ideas out.   


If that doesn’t result in movement, then it is time for the team to “think-outside-the box” in terms of working around the stonewalling person.  For instance, this might be done by offering to create an “exploratory committee” to implement the idea and report back to the management team. Staff time might be offered by the other managers in order to support the work of the committee, or other support might be offered to make the ideas happen.  Clearly, other managers are doing this by taking key resources away from their own area, so it doesn’t happen lightly or easily.  Furthermore, it might mean slowing down new project adoption they have underway, but if the management team agrees the idea is important for the total organization, then the value of this approach is to put the idea into place and to show that it will work and can be done.  This helps to remove the stonewalling manager’s fear of failure and shows them the way the ideas can be made to work, thus removing two substantial reasons why people stonewall and prevent new ideas from being adopted. 


Conclusion


There is a final point to remember when dealing with stonewalling library team members.   When you're faced with one (or several), either as a manager or a management team, and you’ve made a reasonable and fair effort to get them to implement new ideas, then you have to realize that you can't let them stop the library team from doing what needs to be done.  All too often, the stonewalling librarians can and will, become a stone anchor on your library.  They’ll drag the library, and everyone associated with it, down.  In today’s environment, this simply shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Nor can you wait to deal with the issue.  The pace of change will no longer accommodate that approach. You have to start now.  Be fair, but deal with the stonewalling librarian quickly.

PLQ Article - Construction Zones on the Library Road to the Future

UPDATE!  March 26, 2012.  Public Library Quarterly has announced a full promotion of the article discussed below and is offering free access to the article from now, through the end of June 2012.  You can get the free copy by clicking here.  I hope you'll take PLQ up on this offer.


-------------------------------


I'm pleased to say that the latest issue of Public Library Quarterly contains an article I authored entitled: "Construction Zones on the Library Road to the Future."  It's an expanded, more polished version (thanks largely to PLQ Editor, Glen Holt and his team at PLQ) of the topics I've blogged about previously.


The abstract reads: "This article suggests that substantial and often disturbing change is the only way that libraries can achieve a bright future in an increasingly digital world. Libraries must quickly adopt mobile technology, cloud computing, eScience, and the systematic organization and dissemination of quality information—and do so within the context of collaboration with other libraries in the region, nation, and world. Fiscal shortages can not be used as an excuse to postpone imperative changes; money has to be (and can be) found."

Libraries handcuffed

(c)iStockPhoto

It's a very disturbing and alarming trend.  There seem to be a number of company announcements lately where librarians are committing to very long term (7-10 year) agreements with their library software automation vendors.  This is, to be quite honest, a mistake.  


Everyone understands libraries are under financial stress. Some automation vendors, in response to that situation, have occasionally forgone their annual maintenance increases. Others have not and libraries have struggled to find money to cover the increased costs.  So, it is not surprising that librarians are receptive to a proposal from vendors that offers them a "no increase" or guaranteed cap in return for signing a very long time agreement. It controls costs and locks up budgetary requirements far into the future?  It sounds like a good idea, right?   


Not really and here’s why:  


The typical library software automation supplier sees anywhere from 25-50% of their total annual revenues coming from those maintenance contracts, and in the case of vendors who aren’t selling a lot of their existing products/services or developing new products to create new sales, this percentage can be even higher.   Obviously, this means those maintenance contracts are a major source of revenue not only for day-to-day operations of the vendor, but of equal importance, in determining the overall valuation of the company.  Valuation is extremely important for a company that is owned by equity investors as these investors are operating within a window of time and they have a exit plan, at which point that valuation will determine, in part, how much money they’ll make in selling the company.  So it is to their distinct advantage to be able to say to the prospective purchasers of the company, that “x” amount of their revenue is recurring and is virtually guaranteed for “x” years into the future.  It simply makes the company worth more, and by quite a lot, if a substantial portion of that recurring revenue is in this classification.   


Plus, as you might expect, all the vendor is obligated to do here is to supply the maintenance services on the product specified.   But here is a key point - most vendors use some portion of that maintenance revenue to fund new releases of the product or in developing totally new next-generation products, which might get offered to the existing customers at a discount.  However, in most scenarios, the vendor is under no obligation to do that.  So, if short-term equity investors own the company, this is money that can be drawn straight down the financials to the profit line, simply by not performing these activities, by stretching out the time interval between deliveries of new versions of the software or by reducing the staff that does this kind of work in the company.  Here is where the difference between working with ownership that has a long-term view and those that have a short-term view comes into play.    Obviously, a vendor who does this type of profit extraction for too long will end up with customers who are displeased and will want to begin shopping around for alternatives.   So, they’ll lose customers, right?  Yes.  Except if the librarians have signed a ten-year agreement, they can’t go anywhere.  They’re handcuffed and for a very long time.  Yet, if the company owners, as happens all too often with equity ownership, have a five year window for their exit, that long term issue isn’t their problem, it belongs to the next owner, so quite honestly, they’re not terribly concerned about it.  They’ve got a plan to make their money and then head for the door, which is what matters to them.  Ownership that has a long-term view, understands this kind of profit extraction will come at a very high cost and thus will not pursue this path.


What makes the short-term scenario all the more disturbing for librarianship is that clearly we’re in a period of massive change when it comes to library management software.  As Marshall Breeding said in his Tech Trends at Midwinter ALA 2012: “Especially for academic libraries, the current models of automation no longer meet current and future needs.”   


When we look at the field, we see two suppliers, OCLC and Ex Libris that are offering true next generation, cloud based, multi-tenant software solutions (respectively WorldShare and Alma).  These products offer the potential to radically restructure the future of library automation and consequently librarianship.  Serials Solutions InTota might well join this class, but it is simply too early to say that for sure.   


Most other suppliers are simply offering hosted (SaaS) versions or enhanced hosted versions of their long-standing products (Innovative’s Sierra and SirsiDynix’s Symphony appear to be in this class) and thus, it is hard to see any alternative but to classify them as anything other than “current models” albeit with the advantages offered by the hosting of systems (but note this is NOT the same as a true cloud-computing, multi-tenant software solution!).    I’m sure some will want to argue this point, but follow my logic here and draw your own conclusions. 


The new products have been built from the ground up and are giving serious attention to the new streamlined workflows that are now possible because they can combine processes that were previously done in silos (for example print & electronic journals, electronic resource management, acquisitions, etc.).  For libraries, this means you’ll be able to run your backend operations far more efficiently and take people previously assigned to these tasks and assign them to new value-add services where the libraries can provide new value for their members (for example, analytic driven services, data set management, eScience and mobile services are just a few that come to mind).   


Products that haven’t done this complete rewrite of their code are carrying much of the logic of  their previous generation software over into their “new” products.  You can tell this is the case when you see a product description contains phrases like this: "maintains vendor's rich history of functionality and workflow integration" or the system “will provide all the benefits of proven, stable business logic", or if says it  “blends the best features of product X and product Y”, two products owned by the vendor but that are now being replaced by the “new” product.   Ask yourself this: If it's really new, how can it be proven?!?   Only if they're reusing existing code, can a vendor say that with any integrity.


The previous generation of ILS products have literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people-years of development in them and yes, rich functionality has been the result. But again, the only way that could be maintained this soon after announcement of a "new" product is if you're using the code from the old product.   It simply and logically is not possible to make that statement any other way.  


This has further implications for the library in that if the “new” product is using the same workflows used in previous products, then the library will have to staff at the levels of the past in order to support the old functionality.   It is yet another way that librarians are handcuffing their libraries when they tie on to this vision of the future of library management solutions.  Really streamlined workflows that reflect today's library environment can't be accommodated by old software logic.   It requires new software to be written (why else would all these other organizations be making the massive investment to do this?!)


Here is the bottom line.  These next generation products are largely going to place libraries on two widely divergent pathways.  Those libraries that understand and use the real power of the next generation of library management software will be capable of focusing their limited resources on offering superior librarianship on top of all types of knowledge and information resources.   Those libraries that have been handcuffed to software solutions and vendors that have “taken-the-money-and-run” are going to be left madly scrambling to catch up from a pathway that lead them far away. 


If you’re a librarian leading a library, think twice before signing long-term agreements for any of today’s offerings, be it the new or old. Your library needs to stay flexible, agile and be able to move quickly to address an ever-increasing rate of change in our environment.   


Please, don’t handcuff your library.




[Notes:  Photos used in this post are copyrighted by iStockPhoto, are used under license and can't be further re-used or distributed without your purchasing them from www.istockphoto.com]

Another equity investment in the library marketplace – what does it mean for librarianship?

(c) iStockphoto

Introduction


Yesterday’s announcement that Innovative Interfaces, long a privately owned library automation supplier, is now substantially owned by equity investors, created a number of conversations in social media across the library profession. They centered on: What does it mean and what should librarians expect?


As with those that have happened before (SirsiDynix, Ex Libris), these changes in ownership usually represent one of the following things happening within the company:

1. A company founder wishing to monetize their substantial work and investment for reasons of greater diversification of their personal portfolio or as a move towards retirement. 
2. An existing equity owner reaching the end of their typical 5-7 year investment cycle.
3. A desire to bring greater financial resources into the company to finance further acquisitions or for new product or services creation or development.

What it sometimes means is the identification of a firm with low profit margins that the equity investors believe they can substantially improve.  However, despite one site that made such a claim, in the case of this announcement, there are plenty of librarians who suspect from the prices they find themselves paying for this company’s products and services, profitability is not an issue in this case.  


Of course, the mere mention of “equity investors” in today’s highly charged social, cultural and political environment brings to mind the 99% vs. the 1% and tends to taint the entire discussion. However, a more rational discussion is deserved and necessary to understand what’s happening.


Some of the Basics


Understanding some of the basics of equity investing is a good starting point.  Equity investors basically pool financial resources for investment, which, as we all know and understand, means to take measured risks in order to gain measured returns. I also think it is important to understand the following, which I quote from a very informative post about private equity:   

“The capital comes primarily from large institutional investors like pension funds, foundations, and endowments. Large investors in private equity include Calpers (the California Public Employees Retirement System), New York State Teachers' Retirement System, and even the National Public Radio (NPR) Foundation. When private equity fund returns are strong, a lot of workers, teachers, and pensioners benefit.”

So while many of the discussions around private equity firms leave people thinking that only the very wealthy benefit from these companies, the above provides some balance to the discussion.   In fact, your personal retirement accounts might well be a beneficiary from the work of these types of investment firms.  


Once the money is aggregated, the equity firms select and make the investments.  Here, it is also important to understand the basics since debt is one of the tools used in engineering these deals  Again, I quote from the article above when they say that private equity firms:  

“often use debt financing, hence the common name of leveraged buyouts. This is particularly true in the case of more mature companies. These days, the leverage is usually on the order of 60 or 70 percent of the purchase price—less than the leverage in most home purchases.”

The reason why it is important to understand the debt portion of the equation is because this debt must be repaid, with interest, usually by the operation of the company being purchased.  In addition to that, the equity fund management charges a fee for managing all of this process which is typically in the range of 1.5% - 2% of the amount invested.  In addition, they’ll typically take 20% of the profits (after the investors earn their return).  All of this will be important to remember when we later discuss what this means for the profession.


What does this mean for the company purchased?


Inevitably, when a company sees a change of this type in the ownership, one of the most commonly uttered phrases in the press release announcing the deal will be an assurance that it's: “business as usual.”  Rarely does that truly prove to be the case for long.  It is usually more a question of how subtly the changes will be made, when and where.  However, there will be changes.  Private equity firms do not buy companies for the status quo; they see ways to improve market share, productivity, performance and profit. To do that, as outlined in this Harvard Business Review article, they will focus on:

1. “Reducing idle cash setting in bank accounts”.  For instance, this might be done by using such cash as part of the purchase to buyout the owner or to otherwise help finance the purchase of the company.
2. “Take on more debt”.  As discussed above, this is done as part of the purchase process, but the goal, in general, is to reduce the cost of capital for the company.
3. “Design value-enhancing operating plans.”  This is where customers of the company will find the changes more apparent.  As outlined in the article cited and in quotation marks below, these could include: a) “Cutting back costs.”  This will typically soon focus on the staff within the organization, as that is always a major cost for any organization.  Peripheral positions will be eliminated and others consolidated.  Benefit packages for employees may be trimmed and all other operational costs closely examined for possible reductions.  Things like customer entertainment, parties, etc. might be reduced or eliminated, b) “Sales of non-core businesses.”  Obvious in its explanation, but this can also be exemplified by elimination/consolidation of product lines, c) “Investing to expand revenues.”  Likely to be seen as bringing financial resources into new product development to speed the products to market and/or create other new products and services, or d) “Acquisitions… that will consolidate market position.” 
4. “Tie executive compensation to shareholder value”.   Many founder owned companies will likely have very nice compensation schemes for the founder, but they aren’t necessarily tightly tied to how the company is performing on a consistent basis.  The private equity firm will change this and tie these two things together to ensure, whoever is now managing the company, is very focused.

And while not mentioned in the article, very likely, if it wasn’t already there, a very strong and heightened focus on selling by the company. 


What do these kinds of investments mean for Librarianship?


As with most anything, there is no simple good/bad answer to the effect of private equity investments in the companies serving librarianship.  The very fact that they are investing in the marketplace means they see a healthy enough market, with enough potential growth in it, to warrant investment.   That’s reassuring.


It’s also important to note that there are examples in this marketplace of other companies owned by private equity firms, for instance Ex Libris, which are producing leading products and services for the profession. That’s also reassuring.   (SirsiDynix is another firm owned by private equity but I’ll leave it to the reader to assess if, in this case, it is an equally strong example).  


On the other hand, given the way private equity leveraged buyouts happen, as I’ve outlined above, and the debt they incur, one thing librarians have to realize is this: To some extent, this process diverts money from within the profession to outside the profession.   Whereas the profit these companies made previously was being used primarily within the company, now this money is being substantially diverted to pay the private equity firm enough to service the debt, pay its investors back with a return and finally, pay the equity firm its management fees.   These are not insubstantial amounts of money which are now being invested in retirement and foundation funds that aren’t directly associated with the profession of librarianship.  


In the end, the assessment swings on questions like these: Would librarianship be better off if the money being diverted out of the profession was being invested in products from the open source software community or in a library owned collaborative like OCLC?


Or, do the actions of private equity firms produce stronger companies servicing the profession?  Do they help pull together the necessary resources needed to fund massive scale investment in solutions like cloud computing, citation indexes, digital preservation, etc.?  Do they help to accelerate products and services to the market?  Are they more efficient and effective producers of these technologies and services?


And finally, what about those remaining firms that are privately held by their original founders/entrepreneurs selling to libraries and that, while maybe smaller, are more focused on the customers, staff and not so much on making the highest profit?  Would you be better off spending your funds with them?


The answers to those questions, you’ll have to supply.    






[Notes:  1) In the interest of full disclosure, I've been and still am a company founder/entrepreneur as well as a minority investor in other companies that have, or are currently, selling products to the library marketplace.  2) Photos used in this post are the property of iStockPhoto, are used under license and can't be further re-used or distributed without your purchasing them from www.istockphoto.com]

Are librarians choosing to disappear from the information & knowledge delivery process?

Introduction


As librarians, we frequently strive to connect users to information as seamlessly as possible.  A group of librarians said to me recently: “As librarian intermediation becomes less visible to our users/members, it seems less likely it is that our work will be recognized.  How do we keep from becoming victims of our own success?”  


This is certainly not an uncommon question or concern.  As our library collections have become virtual and as we increasingly stop housing the collections we offer, there is a tendency to see us as intermediaries serving as little more than pipelines to our members.  We have to think about where we’re adding value to that information so that when delivered to the user/member that value is recognized.  Then we need to make that value part of our brand.  Otherwise, as stated by this concern, librarians become invisible and that seems to be an almost assured way to make sure our funding does the same. As evidenced by this recently updated chart on the Association of Research Libraries website, this seems to be the track we are on currently:

http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/library-expenditures-as-a-percent-of-total-university-expenditures-1982-2009-40-universities.pdf

What is our value-add (the high level view)?


Understanding where we add value to information is important. To express that, we should start with a high-level description of that value and then add detail to it.  I maintain, that our primary value-add is this: 


We help people create new knowledge by helping them find existing knowledge that is authoritative, authenticated and appropriate to their needs. We put that knowledge in context and provide it without bias.  This becomes the foundation upon which they create new knowledge.


That’s our focus, that’s what we do; we help people to create new knowledge using the best knowledge that is available.   Ok, admittedly, that’s a short, easy sentence but one that is packed with a lot of hard value. Think about what that means and how hard it is for systems, as sophisticated as they are, like Google, Bing or Yahoo to provide those things. 


On top of that core value statement, we build other services that extend the value to meet the needs of the organization we’re affiliated with, be it a community, a college or a university.  However, even while doing that we must focus and be sure we’re moving towards the overall mission and vision of librarianship.  This is critically important.


Before going further, it should also be realized this isn’t anything new. Maybe we’ve temporarily forgotten or lost it, but it isn’t new. For instance, back in 1962, Wheeler and Goldhor, in their book the “Practical Administration of Public Libraries”  told us (and I’ve updated it only by substituting the word “information” for “books” and the emphasis is mine as well): 

“The library’s functions and programs derive from the conviction that [information] is a powerful, indispensible agent for bringing enlightenment, new knowledge, encouragement and inspiration to every member of the community. … The quickest and easiest access to the world’s best thought is through the library.”  

It’s also fascinating to flip through this book and scan some of the sub-section headers in various chapters.  If you do, you’ll find things like:

“A relentless drive to dispel ignorance…” “Objective:  To serve individuals” “The Library’s Prime Educational Function” “Serve the whole community” “Understand one’s community” “The Influence of Non-Users of the Library” “PR and Publicity; An Essential Part of Administration” “PR outside the library.” “Knowledge of Community Interests”

Those could be right off any modern day library list of management issues.  My point here being that over the last 50 years our focus has apparently become blurred, if not obscured and now it is time to refocus so that members of our libraries clearly see and understand our value in helping them create knowledge.   Delivering information, in and of itself, is simply not enough.  People have access to plenty of information (and misinformation) and most of those sources used are far easier to access and use than most libraries.  So we’ve got to move to a higher level of valued services, and I submit that what I described above (and in the past) gives us a place to hang our hats.


What is our value-add (the ground level view)?


Ok, for the sake of discussions let’s agree that’s the high-level view.  The logical follow-on question becomes: How do you translate that value add statement into what we actually need to be doing in our jobs today?


The first thing to do is to step back from all the activities you do in your job and ask:  Are these activities showing, in ways that can be measured, support of that high-level view?  To quote a colleague of mine: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”   It’s a firm reminder that some people do a lot of activities only because they’ve always have been done, or to support some out-of-date need.  If those activities don’t directly tie to value statement, they’ve got to be put on a list to cease doing at the first logical opportunity.    We’ve got to boil down the internal activities of the library to just those activities that support our professional and organizational goals.  This will help us deal with reduced funding by allowing us to take the resources, money, staff and time that were being devoted to those activities where we don’t add value and reallocate them to where we DO provide value.  It will allow us to do those core activities, as well as new ones we should be doing, but didn’t think we could afford, and do them better than anyone else. Our end goal should always be to become the best at providing those particular services for our library members.  Now, what are some of those possibilities?


To answer that question with just a specific list of products would be to miss the point. Going forward, we should be focusing on more fine-grained service goals and objectives and then selecting technology that supports those goals/objectives.  For instance, in today’s (2012) environment, I think we should be focusing on providing products that support these types of services:

1. Access to the library collections and services from any device, at anytime from anywhere. (Mobile products)
2. Massive aggregates of information that have been selected for inclusion because of their quality by either: a) librarians, or b) filtered by communities of users through ranking systems and ultimately reviewed and signed-off by librarians for final inclusion in those aggregates. (Cloud computing products are the foundation technology here)
3. Discovery workbenches or platforms that allow the library membership to discover existing knowledge and build new knowledge in highly personalized manners. (Discovery products serve as the foundation, but they don't yet have the necessary extensions)
4. Easy access and integration of the full range of library services into other products they use frequently, such as course or learning management systems, social networking, discussion forums, etc.  (Products that offer rich API’s, extensive support of Apps and standards to support all types of other extensions)
5. Contextual support, i.e. the ability for librarianship to help members understand the environment in which a particular piece of work was generated (for instance, Mark Twain’s writings, or scientific research—is this a peer reviewed publication? Who funded it and what are their biases?) is an essential value-add we provide.  Some of this is conveyed by the fact that the item is in collections we provide access to, but other aspects of this will require new products we’ve yet to see.
6. Unbiased information. I've written about this in another post and I strongly believe we aren’t conveying the distinction we offer our members by providing access to knowledge that is not biased by constructs based on data unknown and inaccessible to them.   This is a huge differentiator and we must promote and ensure is understood.  If we do decide to use filtering technologies, and there are strong arguments this is necessary to meet the need of providing “appropriate” knowledge, then we should provide members with the ability to see and/or modify the data driving that filtering.  I’ve yet to see the necessary technology or products that provides good answers here.  
7. Pro-active services (Analytics).  David Lankes makes the point in many of his presentations (here is one) that library services need to be far more pro-active.  He and I couldn’t agree more.   We need go get out there in front of our member needs.  Someone is up for tenure?  Let’s go to their office.  Find out what they need and get it to them.  (Analytic tools, coupled with massive aggregates of data are going to enable us to do this and a lot more.)

If we can get this list done, our value-add to information will be well underway and will become increasingly obvious to our library membership.  However, that will take a long time to permeate everywhere we need it to be understood.    So that alone won’t be enough to stop us from disappearing in our members’ eyes.  We’ll have to accompany that foundational work with some promotion and marketing so they know what we’re doing for them and where to find it.   An excellent work to examine for ideas is: “Marketing today’s academic library” by Brian Mathews.


Conclusion


If we do the above, we will choose to differentiate our services from those of other information providers and we’ll be seen as THE place too go to create new knowledge by helping them find the existing knowledge that is authoritative, authenticated and appropriate to their needs. They’ll understand that we put that knowledge in context and provide it to our members without bias. That’s value that our members will easily understand and fund and that will prevent us from  disappearing in the information and knowledge delivery process. 

Turning discovery systems into knowledge workbenches

(c) iStockphoto

I’ve been advocating for some time now, that the existing discovery systems being used in libraries, while good, are entirely too focused on discovering knowledge and information that already exists.   What I want is a discovery workbench that helps me to discover and develop new knowledge by providing me seamless integration with all the tools I need to use in that creation process. 

What reminded me of this was a post today on Digital Book World blog, entitled “Steal this Idea” which contains a kernel of what I’ve been advocating which is a way to publish a book, as a community process ( a process that was used in part in the writing of the book “We are smarter than Me.”  It’s a interesting book and this latest blog post certainly contains an interesting idea by author, Nate Hill of the San Jose Public Library, has put on the table.

So what are some of the elements of a discovery workbench that would help us create new knowledge?  I think it would contain things like:  a) seamless integration of word processing software, so that you can quickly move between reading the digital text and then quoting it or citing it, b) the automatic generation (or one button) generation of bibliography and footnote citations, c) access to the data sets behind the research and, at the same time, access to a suite of tools to allow you to work with copies of those same data sets for your own research, d) integration with CMS and LMS systems so I can potentially interact with instructors as I work, e) support of open access and peer reviewed publication process steps and of course, e) integration with social media tools so that you can discuss/debate ideas in those forums as you’re developing your them (should you want to do that, obviously if it’s cutting edge research, you might not want to tell anyone else!).  

I think if we want to make our libraries and librarianship more central in members’ lives, we should see our discovery systems as knowledge workbenches, not just discovery tools. 

Your thoughts?

Analyzing analytics and their role in the future of librarianship

(c) iStockPhoto

Introduction


The word “analytics” is increasingly appearing in library literature, library product and marketing brochures and in library conference topics.   A quick search for the term in Google might result in you thinking analytics is solely about websites and something invented by Google since their Analytics product is one of the most frequently cited.   (This is because it is free to use and countless websites do use it to determine the success of the website in reaching end-users and how much time they spend their and countless other details).   


However, analytics is actually a much bigger field than that would imply and is truly an important field for librarians to understand.  Why?  Because in a time when libraries are being economically squeezed, asked to show value and to do things more efficiently and effectively, analytics are a very powerful tool for achieving those goals.  (For a quick overview of the basics of analytics, this article in SASCOM Magazine, 1st Qtr. 2010, gives a good quick summary of some of the major components).  


Analytics will allow us to both understand where we are currently being efficient and effective with our services and for understanding how we can increase the demand for those services in order to increase our efficiency and effectiveness.  Furthermore, using analytics will allow us to build a relationship with the members of our libraries and to modify their habits to result in the library and librarianship being seen as the primary place to go for high quality information and knowledge related services. 


Real Life Possibilities


This past Sunday’s (Februrary 16, 20122) New York Times contained a very interesting article entitled: How Companies Learn Your Secrets. The article covers the use of analytics and how they’re being used to influence our purchasing habits.    While the article is very enlightening purely from that point of view, what it brought to the forefront of my thinking was the importance of analytics for librarianship and the future of our profession.  For instance, if you read that article and just substitute “library” for the word “Target” and various information services for the products sold by Target, you find some amazing parallels.  For instance, I quote the following paragraph where I’ve substituted library terms [in brackets] for the original article shopping terms, and when you do, you get:  

“Most [members] don’t [get] everything they need at one [location]. Instead, they [get information from Facebook or Google] and [advice from friends], and they visit [libraries] only when they need certain items they associate with [libraries] — [books], say, or [videos] or a [magazine]. But [libraries offer] everything from [datasets] to [articles] to [analysis] to [counter-viewpoints], so one of the [library’s] primary goals is convincing [members] that the only [location] they need is [the Library]. But it’s a tough message to get across, even with the most ingenious ad campaigns, because once [members’] habits are ingrained, it’s incredibly difficult to change them.”

You can do this in large part, with the entire article.  Which applies, not only to the descriptions of the problem analytics are trying to solve, but the way they’re being used to solve the problems.   Again, let’s borrow the wording from the article and substitute some words to demonstrate this point:

“We knew that if we could identify them [as children], there’s a good chance we could capture them for years, as soon as we get them [using information resources] from us, they’re going to start [using] everything else too.”

“[Libraries or library organizations] can buy data about your ethnicity, job history, the magazines you read, if you’ve ever declared bankruptcy or got divorced, the year you bought (or lost) your house, where you went to college, what kinds of topics you talk about online, whether you prefer certain brands of coffee, paper towels, cereal or applesauce, your political leanings, reading habits, charitable giving and the number of cars you own.”

“Almost every [library could have] a “predictive analytics” department devoted to understanding not just [members’ usage] habits but also their personal habits, so as to more efficiently [offer services to] them. We’re living through a golden age of behavioral research. It’s amazing how much we can figure out about how people think now.”

“When some [members] were going through a major life event, like [entering or] graduating from college or getting a new job or moving to a new town, their [information usage] habits became flexible in ways that were both predictable and potential [opportunity for librarians]. The study found that when someone [enters college], he or she is more likely to start [needing authoritative information].[Members] going through major life events often don’t notice, or care, that their [information needs] have shifted, but [librarians can] notice, and they [should] care quite a bit. At those unique moments, customers are “vulnerable to intervention by [information] marketers.” In other words, a precisely timed [suggestion about an information source], can change someone’s [information usage] patterns for years.” 

“We’ve developed a number of research tools that allow us to gain insights into trends and preferences within different demographic segments of our [member] population.”

What I think this exercise and argument suggests is that if we were to perform the same kind of analysis that companies are doing to anticipate our purchasing needs and behaviors, and then applied our findings to our library member needs for information, we could provide a new level of pro-active services to those library members that would help ensure the value of librarianship in their minds. 


The Challenges


Do we face some of the challenges in doing this?  Absolutely.  Here are several major ones that quickly come to mind:

1. Privacy.  The cartoon character Pogo reminded us, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”  Anytime you start down the path of building detailed profiles of users, as librarians, we tend to dive behind the shield of being the super-protectionists of privacy.  Yet, as the article shows and the rephrasing above suggests, that information is readily available and is for sale to be used by organizations of all types.  Why not libraries?  Furthermore, our users provide information to companies like Amazon in return for convenience.  I’ve argued in a previous post that privacy is not a yes/no decision, it is a series of informed choices and I still believe that is the case.  We’re crippling our ability to give service because we don’t want to ask the members if they’re willing to give up some of their privacy in return for convenience (or easier, faster answers to some of their reference queries).  Yet in many, if not most cases, that’s a deal most members would willingly make (and already have with many organizations far less trustworthy than a library service organization).
2. Data aggregation.  For analytics to work well, one requirement is that a truly massive body of data needs to be accumulated upon which the analytic tools can mine while looking for relationships upon which predictions can be made.  Cloud computing is going to facilitate this massively, as it inherently brings data together into a commons settings where it can be easily shared.   When you stop and think about it, we already have some fairly large collections of data hosted in the cloud with organizations like OCLC.   Furthermore, as their WorldShare system spins up, they will be in an even better position to use analytics to show some truly innovative ideas.  Other organizations like Ex Libris with their Alma system, and Serials Solutions with their Intota system will do the same.   Of course, the question is: Will libraries strongly support moving into the cloud and letting their data be used in this manner? Even if some libraries resist, other – often larger and busier research libraries – may start arraying data to make it easier to reclaim and use for individual organizational purpose. However, given the economic pressures of our times and the need to show value, my guess is that this will be an assured result, even if it takes some time to happen.  We need to remember that collaboration is something libraries have long done well and they will see that extending collaboration into this sphere will make a lot of sense.  Plus collaboration can often be very informal.  As new cloud data options occur, we should see many libraries adopt more formal collaboration on data rules of engagement.
3. The Cost of Analytic Engineers/Statisticians.  As the NY Times article referenced above points out: “It’s like an arms race to hire statisticians nowadays. Mathematicians are suddenly sexy.” Furthermore, “As the ability to analyze data has grown more and more fine-grained, the push to understand how daily habits influence our decisions has become one of the most exciting topics in clinical research, even though most of us are hardly aware those patterns exist”.   Another article earlier this month in the NY Times, also talked about this new job area and the demand for people, in even greater detail.   We all know that most libraries struggle to pay existing IT staff enough money to retain them.   How in the world are they going to do that with a hot new profession that is in demand all over the country?!?  So, what are libraries to do here?  Again, I believe this is a place where collaboration is the answer.  This is the perfect place for libraries to work together, either in consortia or through other collaborative organizations (again OCLC would seem a very logical choice) in order to generate the financial wherewithal to fund the hiring of this kind of talent and to create a distribution system for readily sharing the results. 

Conclusion


If you’re not yet familiar with Analytics, starting with Google’s Analytic product is an excellent idea.   It’s free, lots of materials have been written about how to use and interpret the data and it provides a solid basis for understanding the capabilities of this kind of technology, at least at an introductory level.  Just remember however, that what is possible, given the emerging cloud computing solutions and accompanying data aggregations, is a far more complex and powerful set of possibilities and it will require people who’ve got both the training and understanding of data as well as the associated tools in order to exploit the possibilities more fully.   

Analytics are here to stay and they are already being fully embraced by businesses in their day-to-day operations.  As librarians, I don’t think this is a trend where we should be laggardly in our response. The aggregated data we need to drive the analytics will come as a result of the increasing move to cloud computing solutions.   We will need to get over our privacy concerns and give our library members choices in this area.  Plus we need to avail ourselves of the already existing resources that can be utilized or purchased in order to tailor member services (while always giving the member ultimate control over how the data is used).  We need to work through our collaborative organizations to find ways to hire the analytical engineers needed to help us push forward in building new innovative services; services that are pro-active and clearly establish that librarianship has meaning and value for our members by providing information that is authenticated, authoritative, appropriate, with context and without bias.   Analytics will ultimately give us the possibility of building new data-oriented relationships with individuals and groups of new members to benefit them, your library and you as a professional librarian.