The Medium is the Message

Should Libraries Create Native or Web Apps?

2011-02-10T13:07:00.000-05:00

I have been having an increasing number of conversations with colleagues about the creation of mobile apps. Much of the conversation is not about IF apps are needed, but instead they are focused on how apps should be developed.

There are two different types of mobile apps with each technique having advantages and disadvantages.

The apps one would find in the iTunes App Store or the Android Marketplace are known as "native" apps. Native apps are pieces of software that must be installed on the device and in most cases are downloaded from a distribution point. A Web app, on the other hand, is not a piece of software but a web site optimized for viewing on mobile devices. A well designed Web app can have all the look and feel of a native app.

Develop a Native App if:

your library needs to take advantages of all the features built into the device itself. For example, to vibrate the phone or use GPS. However, this will be changing soon as HTML5 rolls out. Web application developers are already using solutions like PhoneGap, an open source framework suite that provides support for a variety of device features on a variety of platforms. (video)
your library needs to make sure content or service is available offline. If the core purpose of your application is to make your content available without an Internet connection, then a native app is needed.
performance and user responsiveness is crucial
your library is looking to try to make money directly from the sale of the app
your application needs to access the device file system

Develop a Web app if:

your library web site has all the same content that will be featured in the app
your library is interested in potentially reaching users on different devices and platforms with the same app. An Apple native app can only be used on iDevices and is not easily ported to other platforms such as Android and BlackBerry. Web apps are platform-agnostic.
your library wants its app content to appear in search engine results. Library users are begin to demand that library mobile content shows up in those results optimized for mobile devices. Content is a native app will not show up in Internet search results.

General considerations:

Native app development cold be more expensive than building web apps since a greater skill set is required to build apps for multiple platforms.
Native apps requires the use a software development kit supplied by each operating system creator.
Developing apps for multiple platforms would require a maintaining and creating enhancements for each.
Native app user interfaces tend to be smoother and takes greater advantage of the full graphics capabilities of a device.
Web apps require round trips to the server where the app is hosted whereas with a native app that time is almost instantaneous.
Web app content us more current because it refreshes itself from the network.
Most native app stores require approval. Web apps can be deployed immediately.
Native apps require updates to be installed. Web app changes are immediate.
Native apps may be more secure.

Resources:

Meredith Farkas. The Library in Your Pocket: Mobile Trends for Libraries

Brian Fling. Mobile Design and Development: Practical concepts and techniques for creating mobile sites and web apps

Lorraine Paterson. Designing for Mobile Devices in Higher Education Research

Technology in Use at 2011 North American International Auto Show

2011-01-18T12:43:00.009-05:00

My buddy Jeff and I took our annual trip up to Detroit to check out the North American International Auto Show this past Monday. While we were there to see all the new automobile technology, I again paid attention to use of technology on the floor:

The Microsoft Kinect 3D controller was being used by both Chevrolet and Ford. Chevy had five booths with a side-by-side racing game to promote the Volt while Ford used it to capture images of attendees passing by a kiosk and then green screen the image over various backgrounds and displayed it. While many manufacturers had touch screen displays for product information, Fiat used Kinect to create an interactive display that was shown on a large display screen for everyone to see (ala Minority Report)

Chevrolet had a Camero flanked by cameras that produced 3D images.

Toyota had a touch-screen wall with three large video panels that allowed one to explore the Prius. Ford had a touch screen wall that allowed one to create custom paint jobs for the Mustang.

Technology/social media seen at past shows such as foursquare and Facebook were still in use. AutoTrader.com picked on the fact that I had checked in and sent me an @mention to flash their tweet at their booth for a prize. (I didn't catch the tweet)

Just two years ago only Kia was using QR codes. This year there were many. I wan't the only one snapping images of codes this year.

Flickr continues to be the image service of choice with over 3,500 photo uploads

Consuming Delicious Linkrolls

2010-12-06T10:16:00.021-05:00

No. Linkrolls are not a delicious appetizer or a holiday baked good.

Linkrolls are a way to have Delicious bookmarks displayed as part of a web site or blog posting. Although the ability to create Delicious Linkrolls has been available for over 5-years now, I've only recently began to leverage the service.

As an example of how they can be used, I've been working on an ePortfolio to track references to my various scholarly communications, appearing both in print and online. After performing various searches for references, I bookmark the ones I find on my Delicious site, making sure to add specific tags. The saved bookmarks can then be searched, sorted, and imported using scripting made available by Delicious. After all the options are set, it is as easy as copying and pasting to get the targeted Delicious links embedded into a blog post or web page.

To create a Linkroll:

- Create or log into your Delicious account

- Add bookmarks with tags
- Go to http://www.delicious.com/help/linkrolls
- Change preferences, including appropriate tags
- Copy the html code into a web page or blog post. This will import Delicious bookmarks into any post or page.

The code generated by Delicious does not include any styling , so it may need some style tweaking. The imported content should blend in and adopt the look of your site.

Are Blogs Given Any Weight in Library Tenure and Promotion Cases?

2010-11-09T10:36:00.001-05:00

I have stated in the past that I feel that blogging is a valid form of scholarly communication in the discipline of academic librarianship. Still the question continues to arise as to whether blogging should count as scholarship or a creative activity in academic promotion and tenure.

In "Bloggership, or is publishing a blog scholarship? A survey of academic librarians," Arthur Hendricks (Library Hi Tech, Vol. 28 Iss: 3, pp.470 - 477 DOI 10.1108/07378831011076701 ) details the results of a survey of academic librarians to uncover how much weight their libraries, and/or their parent institutions, place on blogs in promotion and tenure reviews. Of the 67 complete responses, 53.6 percent indicated that their performance review committees do not weigh a blog the same as an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, while only 1.5 percent stated they did.

Respondents were asked, “If you consider the above blogs to be scholarly (equal to an article published in a peer-reviewed journal), please describe why.” Answers varied, but one person wrote, “I'm not sure I would say ‘equal to peer reviewed journal’ but as intellectually thoughtful, important, and influential? sometimes. They tend to be more in the formative stage, like a conference presentation rather than the lengthy, substantial, finished nature of a peer reviewed article.” Of those respondents who publish a blog, 57.1 percent indicated that they find other's blogs to be scholarly.

Younger librarians are more inclined to think of their blog as counting toward scholarship when compared to older colleagues. Of those 22-30 years of age, 40.0 percent indicated that they thought their blog should count as scholarship, and of those 31-40 years of age, 27.3 percent thought their blog should count. None of those 41-50 years of age indicated that their blog should count as scholarship, and of those over 51, 12.5 percent considered their blog scholarly.

From the information provided in the paper, it appears that many of the respondents equate research with scholarship, when in fact research is a subset of scholarship. Scholarship is the creation of new knowledge or organization of knowledge within a new framework or presentation. Scholarship can take the form of a peer-review publication, but it can also be evidenced in other ways such as exhibits, public performances, digital resources, and papers at professional meetings. So, if a blog communicates some sort of new knowledge or the organization of knowledge within a new framework or presentation, or is even seen as a equivalent of a conference presentation, it is indeed scholarship.

Criteria for evaluation of any work of scholarship in any form should take into consideration originality, breadth of dissemination, and impact on scholarship and/or practice in the field of librarianship. I would argue that blogs may be having a greater impact in the practice of librarianship than are traditional publications. Blogs have invigorated the exchange of ideas within librarianship and have enabled academics to connect with a larger general readership for their insight and expertise.

What was very interesting was that being an article that discusses scholarly blogging it did not include one reference from a blog. If blogs are to be recognized as scholarly contributions, then they should also be viewed as such.

See also:

The “voice” of academic librarianship

Key Findings from 2010 ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and IT

2010-10-25T11:15:00.022-05:00

The Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR) Study of Undergraduates and Information Technology, is a longitudinal study of students and information technology. The study focuses on what kinds of information technologies these students use, own, and experience; their technology behaviors, preferences, and skills; how IT impacts their experiences in their courses; and their perceptions of the role of IT in the academic experience.

The 2010 results are now available. It is based on 36,950 respondents from 127 academic institutions.

Some random key findings:

- 94% use their library web site for research; 1/3 several times a week or more
- 90% use presentation software and course or learning management systems
- 90% use texting or social networking for interactive communications; only 30% use them in courses
- 89% own a laptop or netbook
- 80% gave themselves 'high marks' on the skills in searching the Internet efficiently and effectively
- ~50% own mobile device; 43% of those use them daily for accessing information and/or email
- 40% use VoIP services, like Skype
- 36% use web-based productivity software
- ~33% are online more than 10 hours a week; the same percentage spends between 11-20%; 9% spend more than 40 hours
- 1.4 % use virtual worlds, like Second Life

The Go.OSU URL Shortening Service: Agile Development in Practice

2010-10-04T11:43:00.017-05:00

About a year ago, I wrote about the idea of a creating a University-branded URL shortening service. Late last month, a small team that I collaborated with at Ohio State launched such a service, called Go.OSU.

Right after I wrote my post last year, I created a short project description and shopped the idea around to potential partners. My primary selling point was that the service would leverage the authority of the OSU brand to the shortened URLs that are included in social media, publications, etc. Although I received a lot of positive feedback about the idea, many potential partners were caught up with other projects.

Since there was so much positive feedback on the idea, this Spring I shopped the idea to the Office of the CIO. While receptive, the OCIO suggested that I build a business case document for them to consider. The idea would be vetted through their review process and, if it past that first level of review, the idea would be placed on a list along with other projects seeking funding. The project would move ahead into development if it received funding, or if other support was identified.

Although I appreciate the reality that projects at that level of an organization need to fit into processes and workflow, my gut said that this review process could take at least a year. It wasn't a very agile approach for a such a lightweight project.

Later in the Spring, I was walking through a hallway at a conference on campus when I heard my name mentioned. It was Beth Black, a University Libraries colleague, and Ted Hattemer, from University Marketing Communications, talking about the idea. I jumped into the conversation. In literally 10 minutes, a decision was made that the project would be developed jointly by UL and UMC and that Ted was on board as our (very supportive) sponsor.

No committee consensus.
No formal meeting.
No user survey / needs analysis.

A few weeks later Jim Muir, a developer on Beth's team, demoed for the project team a working prototype. A few weeks! How agile is that?

We pounded on it for a couple weeks and sent Jim all our feedback so he could make changes. Ted brought in one of his designers, Jim Burgoon, to assist the other Jim with the interface design. The project didn't move ahead too quickly over that next couple months due to competing priorities. The project regained momentum in the early summer and was finally launched after we addressed security and legal issues.

Libraries are always talking about the need to be innovative and to take advantage of emerging technologies. Yet, they slow it all down by forcing ideas and fledgling projects to go through formalized systems. As this project shows, innovation is not born in committee and through process. It is born from half-baked ideas and serendipitous meetings and grows by NOT adhering to formal processes or traditional methodologies.

Shakespeare Quarterly Testing Open Peer Review

2010-08-25T10:21:00.000-05:00

In what now appears to be a trend, the NYT reports that the prestigious 60-year-old Shakespeare Quarterly is also experimenting with open peer review.

In the forthcoming fall issue, SQ will become the first traditional humanities journal to break away from the traditional closed review system. Another journal, Postmedieval, is planning a similar trial for next year.

Mixing traditional and new methods, the journal posted online four essays not yet accepted for publication. A group of experts were invited to post their signed comments on MediaCommons. Anyone could add their thoughts as well as long as they registered with the system. In the end, 41 people made more than 350 comments. The comments elicited responses from the essay authors.

Is Your Twitter Client Ready for June 30th?

2010-06-16T12:17:00.004-05:00

Christopher S. Penn's post Are you ready for the Twitpocalypse? details coming changes to the Twitter API that will impact many of the widgets, sites, clients, and applications one may use to access Twitter.

Penn reminds us that on June 30th Twitter is ending support for basic HTTP authentication, and requiring that all applications that access Twitter via the API change to OAuth authentication. In short, any application, site, widget, etc. that uses basic authentication (entering your Twitter username and password) will stop working. Any application, site, widget, etc. that requires you to “authorize” an application will continue to work as intended.

OAuth is a technology that enables applications to access the Twitter platform on your behalf without ever asking you directly for your password. For users, switching to OAuth means increased usability, security, and accountability for the applications that you use every day.

So, you may want to look up your favorite client and make sure they are set to go with OAuth, or be ready to switch on June 30th.

Are Most Effective Faculty Contributors “Permanent Associate Professors"?

2010-02-12T12:30:00.033-05:00

I attended the annual address to the University Senate presented by Ohio State's Executive Vice President and Provost Joseph A. Alutto late last week. While I do not normally go to Senate sessions, I was given the heads-up that his address would include a discussion of potential changes to our promotion standards.

Although we talk about the need to have balance in their portfolios, the reality is when it comes to promotions to full professor faculty dossiers become a monopod: research. Some faculty have responsibilities that are essential for the organization to succeed, as is the case within the University Libraries system. The work of library faculty involved in e-resources or building digital collections make visible and demonstrably outstanding contributions to the missions of the university. The perception communicate by many faculty is that since such activities are not traditional research they will not given much weight in full professor deliberations.

Provost Alutto's observations support this perception:

"That leads me to the standards used for promotion from associate professor to full professor. Here I am talking about cases in which the 30- to 40-year compact between university and professor, the thing we call tenure, has already been agreed to and celebrated. Given that this commitment has been made, the next question is what should be the basis for advancement from associate professor (with tenure) to full professor (with tenure)...
"One answer, and the one that is most reflected in our formal documents and policies, is “more of the same.” That is, a full professor is supposed to have more publications, greater teaching achievements, and higher service contributions to justify promotion. Wonderfully, for many faculty members, this is exactly the pattern we see played out. They continue to perform powerfully on all dimensions. However, in reality, promotion to professor tends to be based primarily on assessments of the impact of a faculty member’s scholarship in a particular discipline.
"If one reviews hundreds of such promotion cases, as does any provost, it becomes clear that promotion to full professor tends to be reserved for those whose research impact is clearly superior. The faculty member whose primary impact and distinctive contributions are in the areas of dissemination of knowledge through teaching or service to the university or professional associations will tend to be passed over for promotion to full professor—unless a department can find a way to “fudge” a demonstrated level of research impact."

As the Provost points out, this approach is insidiously harmful. It generates cynicism among productive faculty when they realize the “game” being played. This can frustrate productive faculty who contribute to their disciplines and the university in ways other than traditional research. It not only flies in the face of everything we have been told about the need for a balanced portfolio, it also overlooks the need to recognize evolving interests and skills. It tends to exacerbate to dysfunctional levels all differences in perspective about what is valuable, both personally and institutionally.

The Provost continues:

"Given these observations, I intend to work with faculty and administrative groups to begin focusing on the following:

making certain that there are clear criteria for assessing “impact”—whether in terms of research, teaching, or service in cases of promotion to professor; in all such cases, these criteria should involve both quantitative and qualitative measures, most of which will require seeking data from external sources rather than relying on purely internal ones
ensuring clear identification of the bases for promotion to professor; these might well be focused on excellence in teaching or service, as well as knowledge creation;
"Measuring impact is always difficult, particularly when it comes to teaching and service. But it can be done if we focus on the significance of these activities as it extends beyond our own institution—just as we expect such broad effects with traditional scholarship. Thus, indicators of impact on other institutions, recognitions by professional associations, broad adoption of teaching materials (textbooks, software, etc.) by other institutions, evidence of effects on policy formulation, and so on—all these are appropriate independent indicators of effectiveness. And these indicators are no more nuanced or ambiguous than averaged SEI’s or lists of committees on which one has served.

One challenge I see is that the current review paradigm places heavy weight on external evaluation letters. However, such reviewers are only provided copies of a candidate's scholarly works and asked to comment only on a faculty member's 'scholarship.' Reviewers are not asked to comment on, or even provided evidence of, any activities that are seen by the review body as a part of the candidate's 'job.' Since these external letters are the only 'peer-review' evidence given to the review body they not only carry weight, they naturally make the deliberations focus on scholarship. Either a much broader body of evidence must be provided to these reviewers or targeted content experts will need to be identified to comment on very specific activities.

Another issue I see is the evaluation of the impact of a faculty member's activities. The current focus on traditional scholarship means that review bodies understand the journal impact factors or book reviews as the evidence of impact. How does one determine the impact of a web site that serves as an access point to a new body of knowledge or a piece of software that puts research in the hands of rural doctors three days sooner than previous delivery methods?

In any case, moving towards the vision outlined by Provost Alutto will require much more work by both the review body and the candidate. It is the prospect of moving towards a process that requires more work and time that will likely stand in the way of change and will slow down any adoption of the Provost's vision. Yet, he is clear:

"In effect, I believe that senior rank recognition, that is to say the awarding of the title of professor, should also be available to colleagues who have made visible and demonstrably outstanding contributions to the teaching and service missions of the Ohio State University."

2010 Medical Library Association Conference Community Portal

2010-02-08T10:07:00.016-05:00

I was contacted the other week by members of the organizing committee for the Medical Library Association Conference, to be held May 21-26 in Washington, D.C. After a few emails and a conference call, I have agreed to help out by coordinating their first annual meeting online conference community portal.

What is a conference community? What can an 'attendee' expect?

In essence, the conference community is an online experience being built around MLA 2010 that allows attendees (both in person or virtual) to interact and share through various online social tools. Some of the content on the site will even be made available for association members that are not attending the conference.

Yes. Agreed. Nothing really new here. Such tools have been in use at conferences for years.

What IS new for (this) MLA is that many of these existing tools are being pulled together, with new ones added, and branded as the conference community portal.

We have also been given the green light by NPC representatives to use the portal as a sandbox for attendees to play around with other emerging tools. The specific tools that will be used are still in discussion / development and will be communicated through various conference channels in the coming weeks. Since this approach is all new to all of those involved, we will be making up most of it as we go.

I would love to hear from MLA members about those neat things you have seen developed for other conferences that we should consider adding to the MLA10 conference community portal.

Tom Sanville Resigns as OhioLINK Executive Director

2010-01-06T12:31:00.016-05:00

In my in box yesterday morning was the news that Tom Sanville has submitted his resignation as Executive Director of OhioLINK, effective March 31.

The OhioLink system has grown and flourished primarly because of Tom's leadership (and by hiring a very talented staff!). When I came to Ohio State in 1992, OhioLINK was still crawling. The OhioLink system consisted of an ILS that included catalog creation and maintenance; the online public access catalog; circulation, interlibrary loan, and document delivery; acquisitions and serials control; and collection development and management.

While the OhioLink Library Catalog is still a centerpiece, the system now includes databases, a Digital Media Center, an E-Book Center, an Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, and the Electronic Journal Center.

Just recently, I came across an old 1998 talking points document where I was touting the 1400 electronic journal titles made available to our users via OhioLink, from two publishers - Elsevier Science and Academic Press. (see: Diedrichs, CP. E-journals: the OhioLINK experience) By last year, the Electronic Journal Center contained more than 8,200 full-text research journals (12.2 million articles) from 100+ publishers.

Tom's reach went well beyond Ohio. If you are a part of a consortium that licenses electronic journals you should also thank Tom for his service. He was one of the pioneers in the establishment of consortium pricing from publishing giants like Elsevier. It is possible that one of the license agreements you have signed today (did I mention pricing?) grew from Tom's adept negotiation skills.

The text of his email announcement:

"I have submitted my resignation to Eric Fingerhut, Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents, as Executive Director of OhioLINK. This will be effective March 31, 2010. This should ensure a full transfer of my almost 18 years of knowledge and files to other staff.
After my long tenure as director, this was a very difficult decision for me but I believe its the right one for me at this time. With the continued evolution of an integrated Educational Technology infrastructure and the OhioLINK staff’s role in it, and with the establishment of key strategic projects as reflected in the OhioLINK Fall 2009 Update, this is an appropriate time to resign my position and to seek new challenges.
In accepting my resignation the Chancellor has been gracious in recognizing that “OhioLINK is a wonderful example of the collaborations possible when many institutions work together with the support of the state to share resources and reduce costs. Your formative leadership in this effort is widely acknowledged and greatly appreciated… As educational technology and the format of academic materials rapidly changes, OhioLINK will be called on to play a critical role inexpanding the availability of new resources to all academic institutions and directly to students and faculty.”
The job of OhioLINK will never be done. It has been my greatest professional experience to have worked with the OhioLINK community and staff in building a world recognized library consortium. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to serve with so many wonderful colleagues and friends over the years."

Thank you, Tom, for sharing your vision and service to the state and the library profession.

Is a Twitterfarm Pranking the Jester?

2010-01-04T09:58:00.043-05:00

One of the more interesting discussions I have read since rebooting from a long vacation has been the Twitter weirdness uncovered by the Disruptive Library Technology Jester (a.k.a Peter Murray)

It all started when the Jester authored a blog post detailing his ALA Midwinter meeting plans. It appears that others have been constructed tweets that consist of his blog post headlines with links back to his postings. This practice has increased dramatically in the past few weeks.

The Jester uses a WordPress plugin to inject posts into his Twitter stream. He runs the BackType service to uncover commentary found in other social media sites so they can be added as comments to his postings. It was the BackType service which alerted the Jester to the Twitter updates.

In all cases, the Twitter IDs used are unlike those of other spammers. The account names did not contain a string of numbers and had numerous followers. The Jester did notice one thing in common with all of these updates: they came from the Twitterfeed service.

The Jester speculates that these users are grabbing his blog post feed using Twitterfeed and are then syndicating it into their own Twitter streams. He has since analyzed this hypothesis and uncovered other blogs which are also being tweeted by others.

What is interesting is that the tweets of the Jester's blog post headlines are not spam in of themselves. The shortened URLs to his posts do not redirect the user to spam sites, but instead go to the original posts. However, the Twitter profiles of some of them contain profile URLs for spam.

In the comments of the Jesters post, D0r0th34 speculates and Mr. Gunn concurs, that the prank being performed on the Jester sounds like a Twitterfarm, a la Google linkfarm. Mr. Gunn observes:

"Many of the follower qualification tools use follower ratios to determine spamminess of followers. Additionally, there’s a parallel in "macro" blogging where presumptive search engine spiders are really just post harvesters. The point is to provide real or whitelisted content for getting around spam filters, increasing pagerank, or making it look like a twitter account has real non-spam content."

So, while the Jester's posts are not being used to propagate spam per say, it appears they are being used to make spammer user profiles look, well, a lot less spammy. I guess in a weird way that should make the Jester feel good. His content is good enough to make it around spam filters.

Still, it could be troubling for the Jester if the additional posts directed to his blog flag it for banning/autobury by those sites that keep a lookout for those who post too much (e.g. Digg).

Capturing Employee Ideas: The CDC IdeaLab

2009-12-14T10:14:00.004-05:00

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is a large government agency with 14,000 full-time, part-time, and contract employees. While headquartered in Atlanta, the CDC has a large geographically dispersed workforce working in 19 facilities across the United States and 54 countries around the globe. Since many the CDC's employees are isolated geographically, the processes of collaboration, communication, and sharing information efficiently and effectively are challenging.

The solution to their challenge is what they call the IdeaLab. IdeaLab is a web-based application which CDC employees are encouraged to use to post their ideas, comment on others’ posts, and vote on the quality of the posts and comments. Submissions are attributed and authenticated in real time. Ideas are categorized according to CDC organizational goals, and related ideas are affinity-grouped using tag clouds.

A weekly “Bright Idea” highlights a submission that has broad agency interest across multiple national centers and offices. All communications are stored in a searchable archive that anyone at CDC can review at anytime. IdeaLab enables CDC employees to "use their insights and experiences to help colleagues build and implement high-impact solutions to important public health challenges."

The CDC hopes that the IdeaLab will:

Increase connectivity of CDC employees who support multidisciplinary, evidence-based solutions
Promote scientific crowd-sourcing and peer-2-peer networking to build ideas, enable virtual piloting and refinement of ideas, and foster rapid implementation and adoption of the best ideas
Foster retention and sharing of institutional memory
Improve interactions among networks of knowledge
Improve orientation for and assimilation by new employees
Accelerate health impacts by increasing employee-driven innovation and improving organizational efficiency

Harvard: Computers in Hospitals Do Not Reduce Administrative or Overall Costs

2009-12-07T10:26:00.013-05:00

Harvard researchers recently released the study Hospital Computing and the Costs and Quality of Care: A National Study, which examined computerization’s cost and quality impacts at 4,000 hospitals in the U.S over a four-year period.

The researchers concluded that the immense cost of installing and running hospital IT systems is greater than any expected cost savings. Much of the software being written for use in clinics is aimed at administrators, not doctors, nurses and lab workers. Additionally, as currently implemented, hospital computing might modestly improve process measures of quality but does not reduce administrative or overall costs.

The researchers also found no reliable data support claims of cost savings or dramatic quality improvement from electronic medical records.

The researchers did acknowledge that the modest quality advantages associated with computerization were difficult to interpret since the quality scores reflect processes of care rather than outcomes. Access to more information technology may merely improve scores without actually improving care by facilitating documentation of allowable exceptions.

From the paper:

"We used a variety of analytic strategies to search for evidence that computerization might be cost-saving. In cross-sectional analyses, we examined whether more computerized hospitals had lower costs or more efficient administration in any of the 5 years. We also looked for lagged effects, that is, whether cost-savings might emerge after the implementation of computerized systems. We looked for subgroups of computer applications, as well as individual applications, that might result in savings. None of these hypotheses were borne out. Even the select group of hospitals at the cutting edge of computerization showed neither cost nor efficiency advantages. Our longitudinal analysis suggests that computerization may actually increase administrative costs, at least in the near term."

Himmelstein, D., Wright, A., & Woolhandler, S. (2009). Hospital Computing and the Costs and Quality of Care: A National Study The American Journal of Medicine DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.09.004

What Technology? Reflections on Evolving Services EDUCAUSE Report

2009-12-02T14:45:00.012-05:00

I just finished reading What Technology? Reflections on Evolving Services, a report from Sharon Collins and the 2009 EDUCAUSE Evolving Technologies Committee. For the first time, Information resource management technologies for libraries were featured as an evolving technology.

From the report:

"The increasing primacy of highly distributed digital resources has brought disruptive change to the way libraries must approach their work to remain relevant to their parent organizations and constituencies."

"Organizing content to support research and learning is at the heart of the library's institutional role. Once limited to applying subject terms, co-locating physical materials, and producing research guides, this role has been changed by the volume and variety of online resources, which require new tools to more effectively meet the needs of users. A growing collection of technologies and tools can be used to more granularly organize, customize, and personalize the online information environment to fit professional, learning, and research activities."

"These technologies are evolving away from being strictly stand-alone tools and resources and are converging into a more interoperable, collaborative, enterprise-level information management environment — one more closely integrated with teaching, learning, research, and administrative systems. Underlying system architectures are focusing more on providing discrete services (service-oriented architecture) rather than monolithic systems, enabling more interoperable and customizable workflows."

"By combining discrete services with cloud storage and cloud-enabled applications, institutions can build collaborative work environments between libraries as well as between libraries and non-library units, both on and off their home campuses, for discovering, acquiring, describing, and managing all types of resources. Layered over this enterprise-level resource management environment, information discovery and management tools are providing individuals and workgroups with much more intuitive and productive ways to discover, manipulate, incorporate, and share information for teaching, learning, and research, allowing users to shift time from the mechanics of managing specific resources to a focus on analyzing the information itself."

NSF Funded Workshop on Scholarly Evaluation Metrics

2009-11-16T12:03:00.003-05:00

A one-day NSF-funded workshop entitled "Scholarly Evaluation Metrics: Opportunities and Challenges" will take place in the Renaissance Washington DC Hotel on Wednesday, December 16th 2009. The 50 available seats were filled the day that the workshop was announced. I would have loved to be in attendance, given my role as a P&T chair, but I heard about it four days after the announcement.

The focus of the workshop is the future of scholarly assessment approaches, including organizational, infrastructural, and community issues. The overall goal is to:

"identify requirements for novel assessment approaches, several of which have been proposed in recent years, to become acceptable to community stakeholders including scholars, academic and research institutions, and funding agencies."

Panelists include Oren Beit-Arie (Ex Libris), Peter Binfield (PLoS ONE), Johan Bollen (Indiana University), Lorcan Dempsey (OCLC), Tony Hey (Microsoft), Jorge E. Hirsch (UCSD), Julia Lane (NSF), Michael Kurtz (Astrophysics Data Service), Don Waters (Andrew W. Mellon Foundation), Jevin West (UW/eigenfactor.org), and Jan Velterop (Concept Web Alliance).

A summary of the goal of the workshop:

The quantitative evaluation of scholarly impact and value has historically been conducted on the basis of metrics derived from citation data. For example, the well-known journal Impact Factor is defined as a mean two-year citation rate for the articles published in a particular journal. Although well-established and productive, this approach is not always best suited to fit the fast-paced, open, and interdisciplinary nature of today's digital scholarship. Also, consensus seems to emerge that it would be constructive to have multiple metrics, not just one.

In the past years, significant advances have been made in this realm. First, we have seen a rapid expansion of proposed metrics to evaluate scientific impact. This expansion has been driven by interdisciplinary work in web, network and social network science, e.g. citation PageRank, h-index, and various other social network metrics. Second, new data sets such as usage and query data, which represent aspects of scholarly dynamics other than citation, have been investigated as the basis for novel metrics. The COUNTER and MESUR projects are examples in this realm. And, third, an interest in applying Web reputation concepts in the realm of scholarly evaluation has emerged and is generally referred to a Webometrics.

A plethora of proposals, both concrete and speculative, has thus emerged to expand the toolkit available for evaluating scholarly impact to the degree that it has become difficult to see the forest for the trees. Which of these new metrics and underlying data sets best approximate a common-sense understanding of scholarly impact? Which can be best applied to assess a particular facet of scholarly impact? Which ones are fit to be used in a future, fully electronic and open science environment? Which makes most sense from the perspective of those involved with the practice of evaluating scientific impact? Which are regarded fair by scholars? Under which conditions can novel metrics become an accepted and well-understood part of the evaluation toolkit that is, for example, used in promotion and tenure decisions?

I look forward to the twitter stream..

Have Life Science Researchers Removed Themselves from the Mainstream Library User Population?

2009-11-02T14:54:00.007-05:00

A report Entitled Patterns of Information Use and Exchange: Case Studies of Researchers in the Life Sciences has been released by the British Library and the Research Information Network.

The report was developed by capturing the day-to-day patterns of information use in seven research teams from a wide range of disciplines. The study, undertaken over 11 months and involving 56 participants, concluded that ‘one-size-ﬁts-all’ information and data sharing policies are not achieving "scientiﬁcally productive and cost-efﬁcient information use in life sciences"

Skip past all of that and jump to page 47 of the report. There, they state (I'll let the report speak for itself) :

"Conventional university library facilities rank low as a vehicle for accessing published information. The traditional role of professional information intermediaries has been largely replaced by direct access to online resources, with heavy reliance upon Google to identify them. Given the limitations of generic search engines such as Google, measures to reconnect researchers with IIS professionals could bring improvements in information retrieval, and benefits to the research process.

"Researchers also tend to use services that have been ‘proven’ by colleagues, or to interrogate websites they regard as authoritative and comprehensive in their field. When they use such services, researchers tend to take the results on trust: the specificity and the breadth of the information retrieved do not appear to require further enquiry.

"The result of all these developments is that many life science researchers have removed themselves from the mainstream library user population. They do not even use the library catalogue. Library-based services can replace the services researchers do use only by demonstrating that they can improve retrieval capability, and deliver results within a timeframe that corresponds to researchers’ own patterns of work. This is a significant challenge when researchers are driven by a desire for immediate online access to specific resources of interest, at a time convenient to them, and from a known and trusted source."

Overall they found that the groups that they studied use a narrow range of search engines and bibliographic resources, for three reasons:

• lack of awareness and time to achieve or build a broader suite
• the ‘comfort’ that comes from relying on a small set of familiar resources, usually endorsed by peers and colleagues, and
• the cost in time and effort needed to identify other resources, and to learn to use them effectively.

They detail what would appear to be emerging roles of the library in a researcher's information seeking patterns:

"The challenge for institutional information services is thus to develop and provide online services geared to the needs of their research groups and thereby to add value to the research process, facilitating the use of new tools, providing individuated professional support, as well as advice, training and documentation on a subject or discipline basis. Any such strategy would have to be proactive: as noted by our regenerative medicine group, researchers are reluctant to adopt new tools and services unless they know a colleague who can recommend or share knowledge about them."

"Library and information service providers in the higher education sector need to come to a clearer view of their structures and roles.. some of our groups expressed a desire for better portals and tools to identify the information resources relevant to researchers working in their domain. Some of the specialised repositories that are emerging (e.g. in neurophysiology) may help to develop such services."

"Re-establishing a lively and sustained dialogue with their research communities is a key challenge for the library and information services in many universities. Such dialogue is essential if libraries are to provide the publications, other information resources and services that their researchers need."

"Better engagement between information professionals and researchers could add to the efficiency and effectiveness of research, with specialist support facilitating the use of new tools, and providing individuated professional advice, training and documentation on a subject or discipline basis."

"Such a strategy would have to be proactive, for researchers are reluctant to adopt new tools and services unless they know a colleague who can recommend or share knowledge about them. And it would have to meet the challenge of delivering results that correspond to researchers’ patterns and timetables of work."

A Need for University Branded URL Shortening Services?

2009-10-28T10:47:00.018-05:00

Twitter users are quite familiar with URL shortening tools as a way to include web links within their 140 character limit. URL shorting is is the process of taking a long URL and turning it into, well, a short one. For example, instead of using the long URL of http://library.osu.edu/blogs/techtips/2009/09/21/techtips-augmented-reality/ one can use the shortened URL of http://tinyurl.com/ykdkmss.

Shortened URLs are extremely useful in Internet conversations such as forum threads,IM chats, etc. They are also essential in communication channels where there is a limited to specific number of characters, such as with Twitter. Shortened URLs can also be useful when reading long URLs aloud to customers over the phone, adding URLs to print materials, and when showing them on video displays or during presentations. Shortened URLs are also easier to enter into a mobile device.

There are many. many services that create shortened URLs, most notably TinyURL.com. OCLC was ahead of this game way back in 1995 with their PURL (Persistent Uniform ResourceLocators) service. The basic concept with PURL is that content providers could change the redirect as content moves from site to site. The service is not as easy to use as the current shortening services and requires registration and entering a login each time it is used.

The mechanism for resolving a shortening URLs is simple: The browser is directed to the shortened URL site. That site performs an HTTP redirect of the address and the browser is sent to the registered long URL. The URL shortening service maintains the master table of redirects.

One problem is that all the shortened links die when such free services die, as tr.im almost did in August '09. As a result, members of the academic community that rely upon such services will eventually lose access to their shortened links. This will require reentering the URLs into another service, which might also die.

Another concern with existing shortening services that the URL domain plays an important role in identifying the authority of a Web resource. Shortened URLs lose their link and organizational information. All brand/name recognition - the authority of an organization - goes away since the domain is hidden within the shortened URL. One needs to click on the shortened URL and visit the redirected site before discovering the domain's authority.

An example of where short URL branding works is with Flickr. Each photo page also get a shortened Flickr URL. The domain flic.kr is owned and operated by flickr.com so the shortening service will be as reliable as the Flickr service. When someone goes to the site flic.kr they know they will get to a Flickr photo page, not a redirect to a site containing malware.

It therefore makes a lot of sense than academic institutions consider building their own URL shortening services as a way to brand and create authority with their shortened URLs. One University that has done just that is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Wayne State University also appears to have such a service.

I would love to see a local url.osu.edu shorting service. If I had the programming chops, I would write it over the next weekend. I know. It's easier to start a shortening service than it is to maintain it in perpetuity.

Yet, creating an in-house URL shortening service not only helps to promote and support the institutional brand, it lessens the chance that the institution's carefully crafted custom links will not die if the third-party goes down, or out of business.

Ohio State President Calls for Tenure Changes

2009-10-08T06:07:00.018-05:00

Thank You President Gee!

At his annual presidential address yesterday afternoon, Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee thinks it's time for faculty members to be evaluated on the quality and impact of their work.

New faculty members at Ohio State University Libraries enter as assistant professors and have six years to build up their record of scholarship, teaching and service. They receive performance evaluations every year, a fourth-year comprehensive review, and in their sixth year undergo a more vigorous examination to see if they measure up to the level of performance required for tenure and a promotion to associate professor. Library faculty can then choose to undergo an additional review later in the careers to attain the rank of full professor.

President Gee said in his address that professors should be rewarded for their talents and should be encouraged to work with academic departments outside their own. Instead of using an arbitrary formula for evaluation, he would like OSU to create a system in which faculty members are judged on the quality of their work and their impact on students, their disciplines and the community.

This is exactly the position I have been advocating not only on this blog, but in discussions with my library faculty colleagues. Even though I have articulated to colleagues all the points that Gee highlighted, inertia has indeed won out.

From his prepared remarks:

Let me state this directly: We must change our recognition and reward criteria.

Since I returned to Ohio State two years ago, I have made this point a number of times. Changing the way we define scholarship, appreciate new forms of engagement, and properly reward superb teaching can be this University’s signal differential.

If we do not properly and tangibly value those activities, our efforts to extend our resources more fully into our communities will be stymied. We must take it upon ourselves to revise the centuries-old equations for promotion and tenure and develop new reward structures.

Without a doubt, this is a nettlesome issue. And I am not the first person to raise it. Ernie Boyer articulated the case nearly 20 years ago in a speech here on campus. And of course he did so very persuasively in his 1990 book, “Scholarship Reconsidered,” in which he called for “recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching.”

At Ohio State, and at colleges and universities across the country, we have long had faculty committees devoted to looking at revising promotion and tenure standards. And yet, the status quo remains. Inertia is winning.

I believe we must finally speak aloud the truth: that some arbitrary volume of published papers, on some narrowly defined points of debate, is not necessarily more worthy than other activities.

Ladies and gentlemen, this University is big and strong enough to be bold enough to judge by a different standard.

We can dare to say, “No more,” to quantity over quality.

We can stop looking at the length of a vita and start measuring its true heft.

This University, finally, can be the first to say, “We judge by a different standard.” And let others follow our lead, if they wish.

I sit here thinking, what if OSU Libraries HAD acted a year ago and began to change our criteria? Would we have been included in President's speech as the leaders of where the University should be heading? Would that have raised our visibility on campus? As a profession?

So, Thank You! President Gee for validating my, and several of my colleagues, position. Maybe NOW we will be able to break that inertia and finally move ahead.

Process of Tenure and Promotion a Monster That Eats Its Young?

2009-10-07T07:16:00.000-05:00

The approach that Kathleen Fitzpatrick has taken with her new book manuscript might be one possible path that the future of scholarly communications will take.

Ms. Fitzpatrick has made the manuscript of Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy available online for open peer review. The 'book' is a part of Media Commons Press, who's tag line is "open scholarship in open formats."

While the plan is for the manuscript to go through the traditional blind peer-review process, and is forthcoming by NYU Press, Fitzpatrick plans to incorporate reader comments from the online manuscript into her revisions. She asserts:

"One of the points that this text argues hardest about is the need to reform peer review for the digital age, insisting that peer review will be a more productive, more helpful, more transparent, and more effective process if conducted in the open. And so here’s the text, practicing what it preaches, available online for open review."

Not only is the process being used to write the manuscript exciting, the manuscript is as well. A couple parts of the text which relate to the academic rewards system:

"our institutional misunderstanding of peer review as a necessary prior indicator of “quality,” rather than as one means among many of assessing quality, dooms us to misunderstand the ways that scholars establish and maintain their reputations within the field."

"we need to remind ourselves, as Cathy Davidson has pointed out, that the materials used in a tenure review are meant in some sense to be metonymic, standing in for the “promise” of all the future work that a scholar will do (“Research”). We currently reduce such “promise” to the existence of a certain quantity of texts; we need instead to shift our focus to active scholarly engagement"

"Until institutional assumptions about how scholarly work should be assessed are changed — but moreover, until we come to understand peer-review as part of an ongoing conversation among scholars rather than a convenient means of determining “value” without all that inconvenient reading and discussion — the processes of evaluation for tenure and promotion are doomed to become a monster that eats its young, trapped in an early twentieth century model of scholarly production that simply no longer works."

"I want to suggest that the time has come for us to consider whether, really, we might all be better served by separating the question of credentialing from the publishing process, by allowing everything through the gate, and by designing a post-publication peer review process that focuses on how a scholarly text should be received rather than whether it should be out there in the first place."

Peer Reviewers Get Worse, Not Better, Over Time

2009-10-01T11:55:00.006-05:00

Almost all peer reviewers get worse, not better, over time.

So suggests a study presented at the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in Vancouver, Canada, and reported by Nicola Jones in the October 2009 issue of Nature. In his paper "The Natural History of Peer Reviewers: The Decay of Quality" Michael Callaham, editor-in-chief of the Annals of Emergency Medicine in San Francisco, California, reported his analysis of the scores that 84 editors at the journal had been given by nearly 1500 reviewers between 1994 and 2008.

The journal routinely has its editors rate reviews on a scale of one (unsatisfactory) to five (exceptional). The average score stayed at roughly 3.6 throughout the entire period. The surprising result, however, was how individual reviewers' scores changed over time: 93% of them went down, which was balanced by fresh reviewers who kept the average score up. The average decline was 0.04 points per year.

As quoted by Jones, Callaham said "I was hoping some would get better, and I could home in on them. But there weren't enough to study." According to Callaham, less than 1% improved at any significant rate, and even then it would take 25 years for the improvement to become valuable to the journal.

Jones also notes that Callaham agrees that a select few senior advisers are always very useful. But from his own observation, older reviewers do tend to cut corners. Young reviewers assigned a mentor also typically scored half a point better than non-mentored colleagues, but when the mentor's eye disappeared after a year or so, the advantage evaporated.

Faculty Rewards Systems Discourage Alternative Scholarly Communications

2009-09-29T09:31:00.006-05:00

"As a young scholar, with a family to support and without a secured position, my main selection criteria is in practice how the chosen journal would look in my CV."

The above is a comment by Jan Kunnas in reaction to an article by Zoë Corbyn entitled A Threat to Scientific Communication that appeared in the British Times Higher Education Supplement. In fact, Kunnas' reaction is typical in most academic disciplines. One reason why junior faculty continue to focus on using traditional print publications for their scholarly communication can be summed up in Corbyn's quote of Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal:

"We have an industry in which most journals exist to perpetuate an inward-looking academic-reward system, and there is no clear purpose that has anything to do with science."

As Michael Nielsen observes in Doing Science in the Open, the continued reliance upon tradition journals is not only slowing the flow of information but inhibits the move towards the use of alternative scholarly communication methods:

"The adoption of the journal system was achieved by subsidizing scientists who published their discoveries in journals. This same subsidy now inhibits the adoption of more effective technologies, because it continues to incentivize scientists to share their work in conventional journals and not in more modern media."

A University of California, Berkeley report The Influence of Academic Values on Scholarly Publication and Communication Practices indicates that faculty realize the value of experimenting and using alternative methods of scholarly communication:

"There are clear advantages to newer forms of publication that are recognized by a wider circle of scholars than those who have actually used them for publishing their own work. These include the ability to reach a larger audience, ease of access by readers, more rapid publication even when peer reviewed, the ability to search within and across texts, and the opportunity to make use of hyperlinks."

The report then concludes:

"There is presently a somewhat dichotomous situation in which electronic forms of print publications are used heavily, even nearly exclusively, by performers of research in many fields, but perceptions and realities of the reward system keep a strong adherence to conventional, high-stature print publications as the means of record for reporting research and having it evaluated institutionally."

Why do scholars continue to have a strong adherence to conventional print publications and avoid experimenting with modern methods? It comes back around to the academic-rewards system, as highlighted in Digital Scholarship in the University Tenure and Promotion Process: A Report on the Sixth Scholarly Communication Symposium at Georgetown University Library. The report quotes Stephen Nichols, professor of medieval French literature at Johns Hopkins University:

"the operative concepts here are fear and snobbery, and the disincentives are so powerful as to discourage experimentation. Young scholars are counselled that they need solid print dossiers before they attempt digital scholarship and that, even then, they are still at some risk."

Yet, there can be a significant fallout from perpetuating an inward-looking academic-reward system that continues to rely upon the journal while discouraging the use of alternative scholarly communication methods.

An article in the New York Times discusses the possibility that it may inhibit the world’s ability to respond to the sudden emergence of a widespread illness, including H1N1. The reason? Researchers are waiting to report their findings until it is published in traditional journals:

"Officials and experts say they have learned a lot about human swine influenza. But relatively little of that information, including periodic summaries of what has been learned since the beginning of the pandemic, has been reported and published. Some experts said researchers were waiting to publish in journals, which can take months or longer."

However, the Internet has afforded great opportunity for experimentation in alternative forms of scholarly communications, as Joseph Heller observes:

"The integration of digital technology into nearly every aspect of the daily workflow of scholars and researchers has begun to produce new channels of communication that do not fit neatly into the category of ‘journal’ or ‘pre-print’ or even ‘email communication’. These new mechanisms include blogs and wikis that spring up organically around a topic or an experiment and collaborative annotations on a web page. These advances are the natural result of scholars using digital technology in ways that they independently determine best serve their immediate needs and the needs of their community."

When compared to other disciplines, academic librarianship has more liberty to be experimental with our scholarly communication. Advancing the nature of scholarship in academic librarianship is less dependent on adhering to traditional norms. Yet, the major hurtle remains faculty rewards systems that contend that only those communications that go through a pre-publication anonymous peer-review have any value.

Instead, academic libraries need to retool their faculty rewards systems so they more closely resemble the vision of Michael Jensen:

"For universities, the challenge will be ensuring that scholars who are making more and more of their material available online will be fairly judged in hiring and promotion decisions. It will mean being open to the widening context in which scholarship is published, and it will mean that faculty members will have to take the time to learn about — and give credit for — the new authority metrics, instead of relying on scholarly publishers to establish the importance of material for them.

The Uncertain Future of QuickDoc: UPDATE

2009-09-18T13:20:00.000-05:00

Earlier this month, I wrote about the Uncertain Future of QuickDoc in light of the spring passing of Jay Daly. A colleague passed on the following message, which appeared on the DOCLINE-L list on Weds Sept 16, 2009:

Dear Colleagues,

I am happy to report that we have a few possibilities for the take-over of QuickDoc. Jay's daughter and son-in-law (Eowyn and Tommy Griffin) are endeavoring to find the best fit. An RFP went out to several vendors and independent programmers and the Griffins are pursuing the most promising offers. It is very important to them (and to all of us!) that whoever takes over QD will have the same dedication to the user base that Jay did. Be assured that Eowyn and Tommy are well aware of the time frame they have to work with and they are trying to come to an agreement as soon as possible. In the meantime, feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. I will do my best to help!

Margo

Margo Coletti, AMLS, AHIP
Director
Knowledge Services
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
One Deaconess Road
Boston, MA 02215

First off, few, if any, traditionally commercial vendors could EVER provide the same level of personalized support Jay provided. There is nothing else that needs to be said.

Second, I remained perplexed that NLM hasn't stepped up (publicly at least) and offered to take over the development of the system. What role, if any, does NLM plans to play in the future of QuickDoc? Perhaps there are some legal issues that prevents NLM form taking it over. Perhaps they are one of the opportunities which Margo refers. Perhaps they may be one of the vendor's which will respond to the RFP. Perhaps NLM does not have the development and support resources.

The reality is that Jay was able to manage all this by himself PLUS perform his functions at Beth Israel PLUS have a life outside of work. If Jay could do it, I'm certain NLM could.

The Futurity.org Research News Channel

2009-09-15T11:46:00.008-05:00

There has been some concern expressed in science communities that the coverage of science news has also been reduced as newspaper publishers have had to reduce the size of their issues to adapt to changing economic climate and information seeking patterns.

In an effort to keep news about new research discoveries flowing, about three dozen North America's Association of American Universities (AAU) research universities began a news research channel in March '09 named Futurity. The channel includes news and discoveries in the categories of earth & environment, health & medicine, science & design, society & culture.

From a University of Rochester press release:

"Futurity is a direct link to the research pipeline. If you want a glimpse of where research is today and where it's headed tomorrow, Futurity offers that in a very accessible way," said Lisa Lapin, one of Futurity's cofounders and assistant vice president for communications at Stanford University. "Today's online environment is perfectly suited for this type of direct communication. There's something very natural about universities working together to share knowledge."

"In light of the shifting news landscape, universities are looking for new ways to share important breakthroughs with the public. Futurity gives our partners an opportunity to communicate in a novel and direct way—and to remind the public why research matters," Murphy said.

"It's not often you see high-powered universities working to communicate together in such a collaborative way," says Schoenfeld, a Futurity cofounder. "That fact alone indicates the project's significance. Universities are the world's laboratories. They host the brightest minds working to answer some of today's most urgent questions. The breadth and caliber—and the collective force—of the research featured on Futurity is truly extraordinary.

Hmmm. Why didn't academic libraries think of this? The release could have / should have read:

"XXXX is a direct link to the academic librarianship. If you want a glimpse of where academic libraries are today and where it's headed tomorrow, XXXX offers that in a very accessible way.....Today's online environment is perfectly suited for this type of direct communication. There's something very natural about academic libraries working together to share knowledge."

"In light of the shifting landscape, academic libraries are looking for new ways to share important breakthroughs with the public. XXXX gives our partners an opportunity to communicate in a novel and direct way—and to remind the public why academic libraries matter"

"It's not often you see high-powered academic libraries working to communicate together in such a collaborative way. That fact alone indicates the project's significance. Academic Libraries are the world's laboratories. They host the brightest minds working to answer some of today's most urgent questions. The breadth and caliber—and the collective force—of the activities featured on XXXX is truly extraordinary."

The Uncertain Future of QuickDoc

2009-09-02T09:20:00.004-05:00

The library community lost a colleague this past spring with the passing of Jay Daly. Among his accomplishments was the conception and development of QuickDoc, an ILL-management system designed to interface with the Nation Library of Medicine's NLM's DOCLINE system and was used by around 1,500 medical libraries at the time of his passing. Jay would will call libraries to work through any unresolved problems and was very personable. He will be missed.

QuickDoc filled an important gap in the service offered by NLM; a more user friendly interface and management module. NLM was likely happy that Jay built the system since it saved them development time. Since Jay's death, NLM has posted a note on their site that the future of QuickDoc is uncertain. In a note to MEDLIB-L, Margo Coletti, Director of Knowledge Services at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, indicated that it has fallen on her to figure out what to do with QuickDoc:

I don't know what plans Jay had, if any, for the continuation of QD should he be unable to continue. I'm guessing that he did not have any idea that this would happen. His death was not at all predictable or expected. I am still trying to access Jay's files and his program. I cannot promise anything at all to you, Jay's customers. I'm not a programmer and I haven't been able to access the program, anyway. If I can access it, I'll ask someone to look at it and figure out if they can take it on. Please be patient. This will take some time.

I don't monitor the QuickDoc email list and am not up to date on current discussions. Unless QuickDoc was written as a work for hire and Beth Israel owns it, or was willed, it will likely be tied up in probate. The truth is that NLM should have taken over the development of the system long ago since so many of their DOCLINE customers were using it.

As a community, libraries should not have to reply on innovative people like Jay to develop systems that bridge the functionality gaps we expect from our systems. We continue to see such development occurring since many of us are getting tired getting responses from vendors like this (a real vendor response):

"...our development folks have talked about...I'll let them know of your interest in such functionality and we'll consider it as potential enhancement to the system"

When we have to out of necessity, as a community we need to jump in to help support and make sure those solutions remain viable in an unforeseen event.

The future of QuickDoc is indeed uncertain. Many hospital libraries will probably continue to use the QuickDoc application until problems occur that can not be fixed locally. When an install does fail, there will be few alternative solutions. Some may land up paying substantial licensing feeds for solutions that are really too sophisticated for their needs.

The thought that some will have no choice but to go back to the manual processing methods used decades ago is too hard to comprehend this day and age. It could soon be the reality.

Digital Dossiers Are Here!

2009-08-26T09:30:00.000-05:00

Earlier this year, I discussed the need for the promotion and tenure process to transition the the digital dossier. I argued that with all the connectivity to online content that now exists, academia really needs to rethink the dossier paradigm and move from analog to digital. I speculated that this transition WILL happen in the next few years anyway, and suggested that perhaps academic librarians should be the first!

Well, too late. according to an article in in the Chronicle of Higher Education it HAS already happened. Beginning this fall, Kent State University faculty members have the option of submitting their dossiers electronically; digital dossiers will very likely become the only way to go in a year.

A big attraction of digital dossiers, some professors note, is that it's easier to include elements of scholarship and research that couldn't be captured as well in a binder. "You can post video and audio of your teaching. You can take pictures of art and include it," says David W. Dalton, an associate professor of instructional technology at Kent State. "You can hyperlink to things. You can really tell your story in new ways."

Kent State is not alone in this transition. The article reports that Virginia Tech and St. John's University have also gone digital. In a note to Deans and Department Heads in May 2009, Virgina Tech's Senior Vice President and Provost Mark McNamee wrote:

the university committee is asking that dossiers now be submitted in Adobe pdf format rather than as paper. Several colleges are already using electronic dossiers and have found these to be easy to work with while saving many reams of paper. Staff involved in managing the dossier submissions will work together to develop the details in the coming months, including standardization of bookmarks and other changes that take advantage of the electronic format.

The Chronicle article reported that St. John's has saved 225,000 pieces a year when its process went online, in 2008. Yet, their document PAF, Years 1-2 indicates that three paper copies are still required.

The true value of the digital dossier is not in the simply creating an electronic copy of the core dossier. Instead, as Provost McNamee points out it is to take advantage of the electronic format. With a digital dossier:

The only information that would be sent to an external reviewer would be a single URL. The reviewers could generate paper versions, if they prefer.
Network-based content (e.g. web sites, blogs) would be hyperlinked though the digital dossier. This would allow scholarly communications to be viewed and interacted with in their native formats
Traditional content would be made accessible through the use of any combination of OpenURL / Link Resolvers / DOI. Most academic institutions have online access to a growing amount of published literature.
Content stored in institutional repositories could also be accessed.
Content shared on cloud services such as YouTube and SlideShare could also be linked.

Start Thinking Infostreams, Not Web Pages

2009-08-14T18:36:00.002-05:00

Ever since the first time I encountered the Web it has been all about 'pages.' Thinking of the Web in terms other than in pages is quite difficult. Even before the Web I created content using HyperCard, which was based on the concept of a stack of virtual cards.

It's time to begin thinking beyond the page.

The instantaneous and conversational discovery and delivery of newly added content is emerging as the new phase of evolution of the Web. In a post entitled Distribution...Now, John Borthwick discusses how information is increasingly being distributed and presented in real-time streams instead of dedicated Web pages.

Today there seems to be a new distribution model that is emerging. One that is based on people’s ability to publicly syndicate and distribute messages — aka content — in an open manner...what emerges out of this is a new metaphor — think streams vs. pages.

This seems like an abstract difference but I think its very important... In the initial design of the web reading and writing (editing) were given equal consideration- for fifteen years the primary metaphor of the web has been pages and reading. The metaphors we used to circumscribe this possibility set were mostly drawn from books and architecture (pages, browser, sites etc.).

Most of these metaphors were static and one way. The steam metaphor is fundamentally different. It’s dynamic, it doesn’t live very well within a page and still very much evolving.

The people I talk to about information streams they generally state that they don't want more information, they want less. I don't blame them. All these streams (Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, etc) are independent of each other. We need to constantly flip from one to another.
So, what I am really hearing from them is they do want access to more information, they just want to be able to winnow and aggregate the streams. Again, from Borthwick:

The streams of data that constitute this now web are open, distributed, often appropriated, sometimes filtered, sometimes curated but often raw...Weeding out context out of this stream of data is vital... I believe search gets redefined in this world, as it collides with navigation... filtering becomes a critical part of this puzzle. Friendfeed is doing fascinating things with filters — allowing you to navigate and search in ways that a year ago could never have been imagined.

This is not to say that streams will replace Web pages or Web search, but it will certainly transform them. As a result, libraries need to begin thinking in terms of streams and not pages when; A) redesigning their Web sites; and B) When rethinking information literacy/education programs.

The Value of Innovation: New Criteria for Library Scholarship: Part Two

2009-08-13T10:27:00.002-05:00

Part two of the two-part article I wrote for Library Journal Academic Newswire entitled The Value of Innovation: New Criteria for Library Scholarship was published today.

In this part, I provide examples of the types of activities that need to carry increased weight within the academic librarianship rewards model. I adapted the criteria from used by the University of Maine New Media Department and activities contained in the criteria of Trinity University Libraries.

It is important to note that broadening the scope of what is valued that I am suggested is not in any way meant to devalue traditional scholarly models.

Instead, criteria used to evaluate the activities of academic librarians needs to be better balanced so that alternative forms of scholarly communication - scholarly activities in general - are supported and rewarded as scholarship, but not at the expense of traditional scholarship. Librarians exploring and implementing new types of services, new forms of scholarship, and alternative instructional techniques need to be properly reward

Once again, the disclaimer: While I retain copyright to the work, Reed Business has a 6-month exclusive license to publish the work in print or online. So, I'm unable to publish it on this blog until February '10.

The Value of Innovation: New Criteria for Library Scholarship

2009-08-06T15:34:00.003-05:00

Part one of a two-part article I wrote entitled The Value of Innovation: New Criteria for Library Scholarship appears in today's Library Journal Academic Newswire.

In the article, I discuss how it's time for academic libraries to embrace a new faculty rewards model that properly rewards librarians for exploring and implementing new types of services, new forms of scholarship, and alternative instructional techniques. In part two, I adapt the criteria used by the University of Maine New Media Department to propose updated review criteria for academic librarians.

While I retain copyright to the work, Reed Business has a 6-month exclusive license to publish the work in print or online. So, I'm unable to publish it on this blog until February '10.

At least it's available online - today

TEDx Columbus

2009-07-29T11:46:00.011-05:00

One of the more interesting annual technology events over the past 25 years has been The TED Conference, held annually in Long Beach, CA. The conference started out as a way to bring together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then its scope has broadened. Over four days, 50 speakers which include musicians, performers and comedians take an 18-minute slot. There are no breakout groups.

TEDx is a program that enables schools, businesses, or libraries to enjoy a TED-like experience through events that they organize, design and host. Events can be held in homes, workplaces, universities or public spaces. A TEDx event may last just an hour or a full day A TEDx event can consist of a dozen people or hundreds. Some TEDx events focus solely on recorded TEDTalks while others include short talks from live speakers.

TED supports organizers by offering a free toolset that includes advice, the right to use recorded TEDTalks, promotion on the TED site, connection to other organizers, and access to the TED brand.

Over 200 TEDx events are planned, include one in Columbus on October 20, 2009

Six Soon To Be Obsolete Technologies

2009-07-22T10:16:00.001-05:00

At my recent high school reunion I got into a conversation about technologies that we grew up with that are now obsolete. One of my favorite down time sites is devoted to obsolete computer equipment (ah, the Trash-80!). Here is a short list of six technologies that are fading, some fast:

Photographic Film. My wife's 92-year-old grandmother may have the only film camera in the family (well, I still have analog Nikon body). The sound of the thumb wheel click while advancing the film and the click/whir of the automatic are fading. A sign that this is coming soon includes Kodak's June, 2009 announcement that they stopped producing the venerable Kodachrome. (see also: "The Music CD").

Stamp Vending Machines. The USPS is in the process of removing all Stamp vending machines from the local post offices by 2010. If one needs stamps after the post office closes one will need to go to a pharmacy, grocery store, or make use of an online service or one of their Automated Postal Centers.

The Music CD: The current CD format will go away fairly soon as the shift from physical media to downloadable content continues. Emergent technologies such as flash drives and the CD-DVD provide alternative physical formats. Then again, we still have yet to shovel all the dirt on top of analog vinyl records. (See also: Photographic film)

LCD Displays. The organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays will take over from LCD since they draw less power and can operate longer on a battery charge. OLED technology is already in use in small screen applications such as mobile phones, MP3 players, car radios, and digital cameras.

Wrist Watches. Who really needs a watch for timekeeping when practically every electronic device has a clock? Watches are are more about fashion and less about function these days.

Antivirus Software. Having antivirus software installed on individual computers is becoming increasingly ineffective. The U of Mich announced a cloud computer approach called CloudAV that can identify malicious software at the network level.

What technologies do you see fading away that were once a part of your everyday life?

Broadcatching: Capturing "The Flow"

2009-07-07T06:23:00.002-05:00

In his Library Journal online article entitled "The Flow" Revisited: The Personal Angle, Roy Tennant observes:

some of today's communication methods are like an undammed river -- if you're not there when it flows by, it's gone. Email, on the other hand, is like a dammed river -- it flows in, but it doesn't go anywhere until you do something with it....I wonder what tools will rise up to help cope with this -- perhaps your own little Twitter dam, with filters that allow you to choose to see what you missed from particular people while you were away? Or a filter to show only those tweets with a URL? Who knows? It's early days yet for the flow, and I'm curious to see what it brings.

This post made me reach over to my bookshelf and pull out Stewart Brands' 1987 book The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT to re-read his vision of the concept of broadcatching. (Note: I often see things that are the end result of the research done during the '80s at the Media Lab and documented in this book. Lego Mindstorms, custom Portals and personalized Internet, virtual reality games were developed, envisioned, conceptualized, or influenced by Media Lab research.)

Brand describes broadcatching as an application to assist content selection (hunting for specific information) and viewing (grazing a single unfiltered flow or browsing multiple flows with no particular content in mind). Station-selector buttons on a car radio are a kind of broadcatch device. While they are customizable, they can only catch a specific source and not specific content.

While I was familiar with Brand's use of the term, a little research reveal that Fen Labalme is credited with coining 'broadcatch' back in 1983, referring to an automated agent that aggregates and filters content from multiple sources for presentation to an individual user. His definition:

To understand the concept described by this term, first take a look at traditional broadcast media (such as radio, TV, magazines and newspapers) and note that they generally consist of a one publisher to many consumers flow of information, and as such rely upon common opinions and beliefs, as each published issue is targeted for a mass audience.
On the other hand, Broadcatch connotes a many to one gathering of information, using a network of personalized agents to ideally sift through all available information and return just that which is of possible current interest from trusted, authenticatable sources and in a form and style amenable to the user. Broadcatch is designed to thrive in a diversity of opinions and provide a mechanism that effectively automates word of mouth.

I have to reiterate, this was thought up back in the early 1980's.

An ideal 'broadcatch' agent would grab my RSS, Twitter, and Facebook flows and be smart enough to know which items are important to me right now based on my recent information seeking/gathering patterns. It would allow those items to flow through the dam while holding back the remaining until I manually open the gates. But, as Roy comments, "teaching it what is important is likely the hard part."

A Model for Alternative Scholarly Recognition Measures in Academic Librarianship?

2009-06-26T13:45:00.011-05:00

One of my soap box topics that regular readers are familiar with is the need for academic library promotion and tenure committees to update their criteria to be more accepting of scholarly contributions that appear in alternative formats, specifically in new media. The challenge to date for our organization, and I suspect most others, has been finding an existing model to build from.

Here is one with considering.

The New Media Department and The University of Maine amended their promotion and tenure guidelines (all the way) back in 2007 with redefined criteria in the form of alternative recognition measures. Their documents identify nine alternatives to the standard 'article in a peer-review journal' model. I think the measures can be applied to library science since many aspects of LS has similar accessibility and timeliness requirements for their research/scholarship.

The following measures of recognition are prioritized at U of Maine in the evaluation of candidates (bolding is mine for emphasis):

-------

1. Invited / edited publications

Invitations to publish in edited electronic journals or printed magazines and books should be recognized as the kind of peer influence that in other fields would be signaled by acceptance in peer-reviewed journals.

2. Live conferences

The 2003 National Academies study concludes that conferences on new media, both face-to-face and virtual, offer a more useful and in some cases more prestigious venue for exposition than academic journals:

[The sluggishness of journal publications] is offset somewhat by a flourishing array of conferences and other forums, in both virtual and real space, that provide a sense of community and an outlet as well as feedback[11]....The prestige associated with presentations at major conferences actually makes some of them more selective than journals.[12]

New forms of conference archiving--such as archived Webcasts--add value and exposure to the research presented at conferences.

3. Citations

Citations are a valuable and versatile measure of peer influence because they may come from or point to a variety of genres, from Web sites to databases to books in print. Examples include citations in:

a. Electronic archives and recognition networks, such as the publicly accessible databases.

b. Books, printed journals, and newspapers. These are easier to find now, thanks to Google Scholar, Google Print, and Amazon's "look inside the book" feature.

c. Syllabi and other pedagogical contexts. Google searches on .edu domains and citations of the author's work in syllabi from outside universities can measure the academic currency of an individual researcher or her ideas. In the sciences, readings or projects cited on a syllabus are likely to be popular textbooks, but in an emerging field like new media, such recognition is a more valid marker of relevance.

4. Download / visitor counts

Downloads and other traffic-related statistics represent a measure of influence that has gained importance in the online community recently. As a 2005 open access study[13] concludes:

Whereas the significance of citation impact is well established, access of research literature via the Web provides a new metric for measuring the impact of articles – Web download impact. Download impact is useful for at least two reasons: (1) The portion of download variance that is correlated with citation counts provides an early-days estimate of probable citation impact that can begin to be tracked from the instant an article is made Open Access and that already attains its maximum predictive power after 6 months. (2) The portion of download variance that is uncorrelated with citation counts provides a second, partly independent estimate of the impact of an article, sensitive to another form of research usage that is not reflected in citations (Kurtz 2004).

5. Impact in online discussions

Email discussion lists are the proving grounds of new media discourse. They vary greatly in tone and substance, but even the least moderated of such lists can subject their authors to rigorous--and at times withering--scrutiny.[14] Measures such as the number of list subscribers, geographic scope, the presence or absence of moderation, and the number of replies triggered by a given contribution can give a sense of the importance of each discussion list.[15]

6. Impact in the real world

While magazine columns and newspaper editorials may have little standing in traditional academic subjects, one of the strengths of new media are their relevance to a daily life that is increasingly inflected by the relentless proliferation of technologies. Even counting Google search returns on the author's name or statistically improbable phrases can be a measure of real-world impact[16]. By privileging new media research with direct effect on local or global communities, the university can remain relevant in an age where much research takes place outside the ivory tower.

8. Net-native recognition metrics

Peer-evaluated online communities may invent their own measures of member evaluation, in which case they may be relevant to a researcher who participates in those communities. Examples of such self-policing communities include Slashdot, The Pool, Open Theory, and the Distributed Learning Project. The MLA pins the responsibility for learning these new metrics on reviewers rather than the reviewed.[17] Given the mutability of such metrics, however, promotion and tenure candidates may be called upon to explain and give context to these metrics for their reviewers. Again, efforts to educate a scholar's colleagues about new media should be considered part of that scholar's research, not supplemental to it.

9. Reference letters

Letters of recommendation from outside referees are an important compensation for the irrelevance of traditional recognition venues. Nevertheless, it is insufficient merely to solicit such letters from professors tenured in new media at other universities, since so few exist. More valuable is to use the measures outlined in this document to identify pre-eminent figures in new media, or to require new media promotion and tenure candidates to identify such figures and supply evidence that they qualify according to the criteria above.

-------

I will work on modifying these and publish them in a future post.

OSUL2013: Agile Organizational Development?

2009-06-19T13:27:00.001-05:00

Over the past year I have been involved in a grassroots effort to create a roadmap for organizational change at The Ohio State University Libraries, known as OSUL2013. The purpose of the effort is to help the organization adapt to the changing information, educational, and environmental landscapes.

What has been unique about this process is that while it has been supported by library administration it has been entirely motivated and guided by Libraries staff. For their part, the administration has been actively encouraging staff to participate. I have been impressed by the growing participation considering the timing of the initiative coincided with the Library's move back into it's newly renovated building.

The process began with a full-day workshop on April 1, 2008, attended by 35 OSUL faculty and staff, including myself. The primary outcome of that event was the creation of five task forces, which worked through the summer of 2008 to investigate and create reports on the topics of:

Each of the reports define the topic, provides case studies, outlines a Blue Sky vision, and identifies "quick hits." The quick hits were important since they were seen as small scale projects and efforts which could help lead the organization towards each Blue Sky vision.

To continue the process, the task forces recommended an Implementation Phase. This phase began late last fall and concluded at the end of May. The Implementation Phase focused on a handful of quick hit projects projects and was managed by an Implementation Team, on which I served. An Implementation Community (made up of nearly 30 staff volunteers) was created to serve as a very important support unit. They acted as a sounding board and a source of new ideas. Community members were also active participants in several brainstorming sessions. Many also served on project teams.

The Implementation Phase final report (found here) summarizes the process, the projects, and recommended a new group be identified to continuation of the process. It calls for the creation of a working group starting in August '09 and continue through the fiscal year. That group would have several roles:

serve as a peer source of information and support for staff and faculty interested in pursuing innovative projects;
test and promote an appreciative model for group-based work based on facilitation, encouragement, and constructive feedback;
assess the progress toward the goals;
propose the next phase of the 2013 process

The activities associated with the next phase of OSUL2013 would be built from five high-level goals:

Library as Commons: Provide physical and virtual space for collaboration and communication
Empowered Staff and Focused Leadership: Encourage staff and faculty to take initiative to assess and to innovate
User-Centered Organization
One Library System: Facilitate and encourage communication and collaboration between individuals and units
Leadership in Scholarly Communications: Lead innovative efforts in the creation, distribution, and management of scholarship in all formats.

So, what does the title of this post come into play? As I was finishing up this summary I began to realize that the process that we have been unknowingly using could be characterized as being agile organizational development. We have been moving from phase to phase with only a half-baked notion of what we were going to do next. Each phase was an iteration on the previous with mid-process corrections being made based on our experiences and feedback.

While our report recommends that the next phase should last until next June, I have been thinking as I write this that it should last only until the end of the calendar year. We could squeeze two iterative phases in during that time period rather than just one.

Participating in OSUL2013 has been interesting experience for me, considering that I work in the Health Sciences Library which is technically not a part of OSUL. Not only has the OSUL organization embraced my involvement, but HSL leadership has been very supportive and encouraging. I will continue to be involved in the process going forward, but I haven't decided at which level of participation.

Academic Mobbing: Dirty Politics or Animal Instincts?

2009-06-12T08:53:00.012-05:00

An article entitled "Mobbing' Can Damage More Than Careers, Professors Are Told at Conference" appeared in the June 12th e-edition Chronicle of Higher Education. By the title alone, I thought the article was going to be about flash mobs. I became very curious how they could affect a professor's career.

In fact, what the article was about was the phenomenon of 'academic' mobbing. Mobbing in this sense refers to members of a department gang up to isolate or embarrass a colleague. I was able to uncover web sites, blogs, various articles, and books on the topic. Yes, mobbing also happens in libraries.

The practice of mobbing was recently reported in the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Ed of how Oxford professor Ruth Padel effectively engineered the mobbing of Nobel laureate Derek Walcott when they were competing for a coveted Oxford poetry professorship. Southern Illinois University Carbondale has been criticized in the past for having a culture where academic mobbing occurs.

From my perspective, academic mobbing is simply intelligent academics playing dirty politics or being reduced down to their animal instincts:

When songbirds perceive some sign of danger — a roosting owl, a hawk, a neighborhood cat — a group of them will often do something bizarre: fly toward the threat. When they reach the enemy, they will swoop down on it again and again, jeering and making a racket, which draws still more birds to the assault. The birds seldom actually touch their target ... The barrage simply continues until the intruder sulks away. Scientists call this behavior "mobbing."

The June 12th Chronicle article highlights the work of Kenneth Westhues a professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo, who discussed his studies of academic mobbing with The Chronicle in 2006, and created on the 16 indicators of mobbing.

The first stage of a mobbing is a period of increasing social isolation. At this point the 'target' is left off of committees or not invited to certain meetings. Colleagues begin to roll their eyes at them during meetings and there is a growing sense that more people dislike them than they once thought.

The next stage is one of petty harassment. Administrative requests are delayed or misplaced. They are made to follow the rules and processes while others are able to get around them. A research grant is squelch.

The third stage is the "critical incident." It is when significant accusations are made; a charge of plagiarism, a surprise audit. In the eyes of the mob, the critical incident demands swift administrative action and it is use to reinforce what they have always suspected.

The next stage is adjudication. At this point, the mobbing escalates to the administrative level, where it is either legitimized or stopped short.

And then, Mr. Westhues says, chances are the 'target' leaves. Whether they are dismissed or fully reinstated, whether it is due to exhaustion, or illness they cut their losses and get out.

Do Conference Bloggers and Tweeters Need to Follow Media Rules?

2009-06-04T14:13:00.009-05:00

Science Insider reports that Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) is amending its meetings policy so that participants who plan on blogging and tweeting must also adhere to the rules set for members of the media. The article states that bloggers and tweeters, in addition to the media, will need to notify CSHL ahead of time if they plan to cover the meeting and must receive permission from the speaker or poster author before reporting on what's presented.

The post highlights the case of Daniel MacArthur from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, United Kingdom. MacArthur wrote several on the spot blog posts at The Biology of Genomes meeting that covered advances being discussed by the participants. The news service Genomeweb complained.

When should someone feel free to blog or tweet? Andrew Maynard posts some guidelines:

In general: Irrespective of the setting, I tend to ask whether the information being presented is confidential, whether it is sensitive in any way, and whether others would benefit from reading about it on Twitter or 2020science. There has been at least one occasion where I decided not to live-tweet from a public meeting because I thought it would embarrass the speakers unnecessarily. There have been other occasions where I have live tweeted to provide people not at the meeting a sense of what someone is saying, as they say it.

This only applies to formal presentations and public comments. Publicly commenting on private conversations is absolutely out as far as I’m concerned, and I will only write about side conversations the person I’m talking to knows my intentions beforehand.

Invitation-only meetings: Definitely no live tweeting, and no blogging unless express permission is given.

Meetings with clearly stated reporting limitations: Generally, no live tweeting, and abiding by the rules when it comes to blogging.

Expert presentation & discussion of non-peer reviewed data. If the aim of the meeting is to seriously assess and discuss someone’s unpublished research, I would hesitate to live tweet. I might blog - but only if it seemed appropriate given the state and significance of the research.

Open conferences (i.e. anyone who pays can attend) where researchers are reviewing the state of knowledge, presenting published data, or clearly think they are the bees knees and everyone should know it. These I see as fair game for live tweeting and blogging - without the permission of the speaker.

Public meetings, where anyone can attend and there is no entrance fee. Open season as far as tweeting and blogging go.

Assistance in Evaluating Digital Scholarship?

2009-05-26T15:00:00.007-05:00

As a follow up to my Faculty Review System FAIL post, an article by Scott Jaschik entitled Tenure in a Digital Age appeared in today's Inside HigherEd.

The article highlights a consortium called the Humanities, Arts, Science and Technology Advanced Collaboratory that have produce a draft guide (on a personal Web site, not the consortium's) that offers some guidance for departments on approaches used by various colleges to evaluate digital scholarship, resources available to scholars wanting to get a take on some project, and policies that could be adopted to assure the fair treatment of those coming up for review.

One reason for the new effort is that shifts in publishing may make it impossible for a growing number of academics to submit traditional tenure dossiers. With many university presses in financial trouble and others -- notably the University of Michigan Press -- turning to electronic publishing for monographs, there will be fewer possibilities for someone to be published in the traditional print form that was once the norm for tenure.

The article notes that the shift that is occurring isn't just about the digital scholarship, but about how tenure committees being forced to learn much more about candidates and how their work was evaluated than has been the norm.

So many tenure decisions have been made on the basis of assuming that a university press has a sound peer review system -- and one that can be relied upon -- that tenure has been outsourced, some say. Now, new models of scholarship are forcing these committees to closely consider how they know a candidate is producing good work.

The article also echoed my comments about how activities that do not fit neatly into teaching, research, or services get categorized as service:

Many tenure review procedures are based on an assumption that a junior professor's work can be divided easily into teaching, research and service. Feal noted that one of the exciting aspects of the new digital projects being created is that they advance scholarship and create teaching tools at the same time. Professors shouldn't be forced to pick between one category and another. Similarly, those involved in this project say that some college departments just categorize anything digital as service, a solution seen as unsatisfactory because many of these project are in fact focused on scholarship and teaching, and because service typically doesn't count for much in tenure reviews.

I haven't had the time to look over the HASTAC documents at length since I wanted to communicate their availability. I am very interested in seeing how they could be applied or modified for our library faculty.

Faculty Review System FAIL?

2009-05-22T14:30:00.046-05:00

One of the issues that our AP&T committee is trying to get a handle on is how we can make sure that our criteria reflects the current and changing models of scholarship occurring both within the library profession and the academy.

In Talk About Talking About New Models of Scholarly Communication, Karla Hahn, Director of the Office of Scholarly Communications at the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), helps to define scholarly communication. It is:

.. knowledge transmission—even if it is simply passing information from one brain to another through speech, e-mail, submission to a database, the display of an image or video, or through a formal writing and printing process. In contrast, scholarly publishing is a subset of communication activities mediated through the use of a durable medium to fix knowledge

The traditional definition of scholarly communication is the publication of monographs and journals. This has served as a useful model since traditional publication can be clearly distinguished from other communication practices. Our library faculty as a whole conforms to this conventional definition of scholarly communication. Even so, a growing number of our faculty feel that new models of scholarly communication are not only just as valid as the traditional forms, but are critical for real-time knowledge transmission.

The obstacle to pursuing new forms of scholarly communication appears to be a rewards systems that still places a major emphasis on traditional publishing models. Yes, we need to be careful not to rebalance priorities in a way that devalues traditional scholarship. We also need to strike a balance so that alternative forms of scholarly communication - scholarly activities in general - are supported and rewarded as scholarship, but not at the expense of traditional scholarship.

The University of California's Office of Scholarly Communication issued a paper entitled Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication. They observed:

The majority’s lack of motivation to alter behavior appears to be connected... to the tradition-bound tenure and review process... the current tenure and promotion system drives them to focus on conventional publishing activities...Assistant Professors show consistently more skepticism about the ability of tenure and promotion processes to keep pace with or foster new forms of scholarly communication.

The groundswell for changes in how scholarly activities are defined and evaluated is growing. The thinking is that scholarly activities must not be judged on traditional review and distribution methods but according to (appropriate) standards for significance, excellence, and impact. The problem is that no one can seem to get an agreement on what those standards should be. At what price?

Boyce D. Watkins, an assistant professor of finance at Syracuse University is reacting to Syracuse's decision to deny him tenure and let him go by saying he had been led to believe that the university's standards for judging faculty publications had changed, putting less emphasis on refereed journals. Watkins points to SU Chancellor Cantor's efforts to encourage more faculty engagement with the public and interpreted Chancellor Cantor's call for "scholarship in action" as giving him the green light to focus on publishing and publicizing his work in the mainstream media.

As a growing number of scholarly activities depart from established academic patterns, review committees simply do not know what to do with them. Since they don't fit neatly into one of the three legs of facultyness - teaching , research, and service - such activities are commonly classified as service. This generic classification is, of course, problematic since all emerging forms of scholarly communication are being dumped into this category and assessed as service, not as scholarship.

When it comes to review time, as Professor Watkins experienced, innovative scholarly activities are not given the weight they deserve. We simply fall back into a practice of classifying activities in one of the three legs, even as those classifications no longer make sense. We then fall back into the thinking about traditional communication models as being the only ones that really have any value.

As UC observes, committees need to begin treating value as intrinsic in the work and its use, rather than predetermined by how it is classified. Review committees need to remove this presumption in the evaluation process in order not to prejudge what they are evaluating. Scholarship other than publication needs to be assigned a greater value. The teaching and service categories need be renovated to make contributions in these categories a potential basis for tenure or promotion.

After all, where will the motivation to become more innovative scholars, to be involved in more interdisciplinary endeavors, or to engage in new activities come from if faculty must conform to rewards systems that reflects a bygone era? (see: Copyright Law) Faculty review cultures and processes which have been perfected for traditional scholarship need to be replaced with structures optimized for digital scholarship.

Are we really trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here? Can we really expect to break out of the existing paradigm of how we define and assess scholarly activities if we limit our thinking to fitting into the existing system?

#MLA09 Tech Trends Panel Video #mla09tech

2009-05-18T10:59:00.000-05:00

I am participating 'live' on a tech trends panel session today at the Medical Library Association Conference underway in Hawaii. You can follow the panel on May 18, 2009 at 4:30pm (east coast) via TweetChat or the CoverItLive pilot.

MLA 2009 Cover It Live Feed #mla09

2009-05-14T14:39:00.005-05:00

I am playing with Cover It Live for the Medical Library Association annual meeting. I have a feed set up for the Tech Trends panel but decided to test it on a whole conference feed.

Duped by Elsevier? Run to Your Local Library. NOW!

2009-05-11T10:56:00.017-05:00

I was one of those that expressed outrage last fall over the Journal of Access Services decision to devote an entire issue to the postings of an anonymous blogger. I felt the decision by the editor and publisher to lower their quality standards exposed a crack in the foundation of scholarly communication. Another controversy has emerged in the past few weeks.

Between 2003 and 2005 Elsevier produced several issues of Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. The controversy is that it has been recently exposed that the Elsevier was paid by Merck to publish the 'journal' which contained favorable data about Merck products Fosamax and Vioxx - without any disclosure of Merck's involvement.

The Scientist obtained two PDF issues of the journal: Volume 2, Issues 1 and 2, both dated 2003. Other titles published by Elsevier and paid for by Merck include the Australasian Journal of General Practice, the Australasian Journal of Cardiology and the Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine.

An interesting analysis at the Chemistry Blog revealed that 63% of the articles were favorable to Merck.

There is plenty of outrage over the ethics in this case. Elsevier deserves all the negative press. I am not going to pile on. Instead, after looking over the issues I believe there were plenty of clues that the publication was not scholarly in nature, regardless of the title and the peer-review look. We all should be concerned if scientists were actually duped into thinking the journal was scholarly communication:

The journal is not indexed in MEDLINE. Sure, many journals are not in the database, but it is still the premiere discover tool and any journal of value would be in it.
It's not in ISI Web of Knowledge. Ditto.
Most scientific research journals include financial and funding disclosures. The lack of them should raise a few flags.
How many 'review' articles cite only one or two articles?
The editorial board is 'honorary.'
There were no 'instructions for authors.'
Many of the 'articles' had NO authors.
Most science/tech articles these days have a DOI.
The journal had no website.

I'm sure there are many more.

I'm unsure if scientists were actually duped. Chances are that most are more concerned over the idea that this occurred then whether or not any life-changing decisions were actually made based on articles in the advertorial.

Any scientist or professional that was duped needs to run - not walk - to their local library. Ask for the librarian on duty. Ask them to explain how to evaluate scholarly journals.

Participate in the MLA09 Tech Trends Panel - Virtually. #mla09tech

2009-05-04T09:23:00.021-05:00

I will be a virtual presenter at the Technology Trends Panel at the 2009 Medical Library Association Conference. One of the topics I will be covering will be virtual conference attendance

As a part of my research, I decided to play around with a service called CoverItLive I first used the CiL service to virtually attend the 2009 Computers in Libraries conference. (yes, both use the same CiL acronym).

CiL is designed to provide a live stream from any event. Organizers can select any number of authors to provide live 'blogging.' Participants can then comment on those postings. Twitter streams can be imported into the CiL feed based on specific accounts or custom hash tags. This is nice since it does not require participants to post at two sites. Other useful features include including embedding videos, asking poll questions, and the archiving of CiL sessions.

As a participant, there is really nothing to do during a CiL live event other than read, watch, and occasionally send a comment or vote.

I decided to set up a CiL site for the Tech Trends Panel as a pilot. It will make use of Twitter updates that use the hash tag #mla09tech. I will also embed the two videos presented and any additional resources.

Feel free to sign up for the session with a reminder below. It is also important to note that the only support for the site will be five zones away from the conference.

Libraries Need to Think More Like Trent Reznor

2009-04-23T08:25:00.002-05:00

I seem to be reading a lot about Trent Reznor as of late. I have been forwarded the "Nine Inch Nails iPhone App Extends Reznor's Innovative Run" article in Wired and a Twitter update from a librarian colleague/former student referenced Digg Dizlog: Trent Reznor.

For those saying "Trent Who?," Reznor is a musician/noisemaker for the group Nine Inch Nails (NIN). He has been gaining accolades for his efforts to make music affordable for the consumer while helping artists earn a living. He has done this by rejecting the major-label system and instead distributing music directly to the public via the Web. Many feel that Trent Renzor represents the future of the music industry.

The Reznor piece that caught my attention was a (15 min) YouTube video of a presentation given by Michael Masnick, the founder of Techdirt. Masnick has distilled Reznor's business model down into a simple equation: CwF + RtB = $$$$.

The "CwF" in the equation stands for Connect with Fans. Using various approaches, like dropping USB keys containing new music in the bathrooms at NIN concerts, Reznor has been able to engage, energize, and get fans excited. He continuously experiments and does new stuff to connect with his fans. Masnick commented that he had to change his presentation as he was building it since Reznor kept coming up with new stuff.

The "RtB" in the equation stands for Reason to Buy. This is where Reznor uses his connection with fans to give them reasons to purchase concert tickets, t-shirts, etc. For example, he also creates special 'box' packages of his products which are considered by NIN's fans to be special and unique. Reznor is giving his followers an opportunity to have something that they feel has a significant value added.

The "$$$$" is self explanatory.

Amid all the discussions about the future of academic libraries, I began musing what academic librarians could possibly learn from Reznor. What I came up with was the following (and half-baked) modified Masnick equation:

CwC + RtU = a dynamic library

The "CwC" in the equation refers to Connect with Community. Academic libraries should constantly thinking and prototyping new ways to connect with our communities. This is not to say that libraries are failing to connect. The challenge is that libraries tend to make a connection and hang onto it well beyond its useful life. We shouldn't be satisfied with how we are connecting today.

What are the next connections out there that will allow academic libraries to integrate the services and resources we offer into the lives of our communities? How many prototypes and pilots can we create and get out there as fast as possible?

Academic libraries must implement ideas that are half-baked and equally willing to let them go when they are not working out. We need to continuously experiments and do new stuff to connect with our communities. We need to be so dynamic that others need to change presentations about libraries since we keep coming up with new stuff. We need to learn how to plan less, prototype more!

I doubt Reznor performed a formal needs assessment, a literature search to see what other were doing, and charged a planning committee for each of his ideas.

While academic libraries are playing around with ways to connect with our communities, the important question that each needs to ask and answer for itself is what are the Reasons to Use (RtU)? An interesting analogy was drawn between libraries and the post office in the report No Brief Candle.

Unless libraries take action, participants cautioned, they risk being left with responsibility for low-margin services that no one else (including the commercial world) wants to provide. An analogy is the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). Its innovative, high-margin services, such as international and overnight delivery, have been taken over by private firms, leaving the USPS largely with its lowest-margin-of-return function: domestic mail delivery

Libraries and the post office do share many similar qualities. The physical access to information was our first class mail service for a very long time. We still have (largely) organizational structures, services, and resources allocated around the organization and delivery of physical information. As technology has improved, our communities have begun to use other pathways to deliver and receive their information (first class mail), be it in physical or digital formats.

As with the postal service, at some point libraries could be left offering services that no other service provider finds of value. We could be 'stuck' offering our equivalent of second and third class mail services. Sure, these services are reasons to use the library, but should we be satisfied in offering lowest-margin-of-return services?

The challenge is that some librarians may actually feel that it is the role of academic libraries to provide lowest-margin-of-return services since those are the ones our communities say they need. Instead, I feel that librarians need to begin identifying our added value services. What are the premium packages and the limited addition services which we can provide to support our communities? How can we create a new organizational models to support these services and the Reasons to Use?

CwC + RtU = a dynamic library

So, do academic libraries need to stop thinking less like a post office and start thinking more like Trent Reznor? I think so.

Should academic libraries be scattering USB drives containing attention grabbing content on the floors of our student Unions during orientation week? Absolutely!

However, we shouldn't do it again next year, let alone the year after that.

OSU Library Labs: Concept to Production in 90 Days

2009-04-09T10:21:00.028-05:00

The number of libraries discussing the concepts of agile development, perpetual beta, and rapid prototyping is encouraging. The one thing that all of these approaches have in common is the idea of including customers as active participants in the development and/or testing of new products and services. To that end, many libraries have created library labs sites to distribute various experimental and half-baked tools and gadgets.

A library lab allows an academic library to introduce new services at any time, not just during the three week window between semesters or when the services are ‘perfected.’ It creates an environment for users to experiment with new services. It is a showcase for projects under development or consideration. There is really no limit to what can be put on a labs site, nor is it limited to just technology solutions. A labs site allows a library to invest just enough resources to see if the idea is worth investing in, or let go of prototypes in a dignified manner.

The idea of an OSU labs site has been kicked around internally for at least a year. The challenge was other projects and job responsibilities kept the project in concept mode. Well, today we soft-launched OSU Library Labs.

In late January, as I prepared to transition to my new emerging technologies role, I assembled a small team of five people to (finally) move the project forward. The team members were selected based on both their interest in emerging technologies and in doing a project, well, differently. Since the project was outside the responsibilities of the team members, and that we have a traditionally organizational structure, I worked on an elevator talk (um, err, email) to present to the appropriate managers to gain 'permission' for staff involvement. Fortunately, everyone was excited by the project concept.

Once the initial team was assembled, the first thing we discussed was the need to work against natural tendencies of wanting to get buy-in at all levels and creating the perfect service. This was actually harder than one would think and surprising since we had no outside pressures. In fact, we had support for doing things differently. Goes to show how old behaviors are hard to change.

Once we granted ourselves permission to behave differently, the team decided to work on two-week deadlines. We met in person four times for an hour each. We kept things as simple as possible and kept catching ourselves when we began to over think or over plan. As the title states, it took us 90-days from the first time we began discussions to the posting of our "Hello World" entry.

The team has already gotten props for how fast we got the project up and online. Congrats team!

Twitter Lag Disrupts Virtual Conference Attendance

2009-03-30T14:12:00.008-05:00

I spent a good chunk of today 'attending' the Computers in Libraries conference by keeping up with the #cil2009 infostream while listening to TWiT live via ustream. Around 1:40p (in the east) I saw someone in TWiT chat screen a mention that they just felt an earthquake in San Francisco.

Indicative of how my information seeking behavior has changed, the first thing I did was perform a Twitter Search. Within 20 seconds of my initial search, which had hundreds of results, over 1500 additional results were available. The number of updates increased rapidly.

Around and hour later the infostream from Computers in Libraries virtually stopped. There was initially a 21-minute update gap between 2:46p and 3:07p . I thought maybe it was time for a coffee break at the conference. Eventually, Twitter began to back fill those posts with a delay of 15-minutes. By 4:15p the delay dropped to around 5-minutes. A similar delay was occurring with the #earthquake posts. Until I hear another explanation, I will attribute the delay on the increased number of updates about the earthquake putting a heavy load on the system.

It also highlights the reality that we need to be careful about the increased reliance on this single system. A 10-minute update delay in my virtual conference attendance is nothing when compared to the potentially devastating effect of such a system overload if relied upon for real time communication of emergency situations.

It’s Time to Embrace Newer Forms of Scholarly Communication

2009-03-23T10:47:00.000-05:00

I decided to write a letter to the promotion and tenure committee after being tenured back in 1997. I had completely forgotten about the letter until I recently uncovered it. In re-reading it, I do not know if I'm more surprised about my insightful comments 12-years ago, or more disappointed that all of the issues I presented are STILL issues. From my letter:

" The fact that my web publications are not in the traditional peer-review mold may mean they hold little weight in the tenure process. This perception comes from the fact that no reference them appeared in my tenure review letter...

"I certainly understand the importance and significance of peer-reviewed, paper-based publications. The growing number of traditional publications in my dossier should demonstrate this understanding. However, electronic communication is becoming a significant part of the library profession. Just as technology is changing the manner in which we perform our jobs it is also changing how we communicate our theories, ideas, and concepts. As a profession, librarianship needs to adapt to these changes for our scholarly communications to advance...

"Finally, I have had discussions with tenured and nontenured library faculty that real a need for an open dialog regarding electronic publications and resources during the tenure and promotion process. I encourage the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee to begin considering how such a dialog can begin so future candidates will understand how electronic publications will be recognized."

Yes, these issues are not only still on the table but are discussed in an article by Sarah Kubik entitled Getting Serious About Research Online appearing in the March 20, 2009 edition of Inside Higher Ed. Kubik is an associate faculty member in visual communications and design at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

Kubik makes the argument that while it once made sense to equate print with quality, it’s time to embrace newer forms of scholarly communication as being valid. She points out that even the new Modern Language Association Handbook for Writers of Research Papers no longer recognizes print as the default medium.

Issue: academics still care about the output delivery method when it should be all about the content.

Important scholarly communications are now being delivered using any number of personal communications conduits including blogs, online journals, e-mail, forum posts, podcasts, Twitter tweets, text messages, or instant messages. Still, academics dismiss this type of content as being less valuable. From Kubik:

"If the Tribune Company decides to lessen its production of printed papers because they are too costly, does this mean that they are implying that printed content is less intellectual than Web content? Of course not. But academic circles are not all following suit. Online-only journals often have no impact factor scores, yet the students who use Google will find these journals pop up more frequently than the traditional publications. Perhaps this move toward paper-free publications will speed up the process of submitting an article, waiting for the first review, re-submitting the article with changes, waiting for the next review, (hopefully) getting the article accepted, and then waiting to have the article printed in the journal."

For promotion and tenure purposes it is still all about about print. Nothing more needs to be said.

Issue: Even when academics do recognize the value of electronic content, there is a tendency to use the lack of a traditional peer-review process to devalue it.

Yes, we now have to be able to judge the quality of online content. Yes, a quality filtering process is needed. Yet, I do not think such a process has to be in place before there can be a wider acceptance of scholarly communication in all its form. The mindset that processes for identifying content quality and peer-review have to be in place before the content can be accepted may be the single reason we are no closer to a solution then when I addressed the issue up 12 years ago.

At least some institutions, such as Oregon State University, have begun to address both these issues in their criteria:

While the kinds of scholarship for faculty across the range of positions at the University will vary, the requirement that the significance of the scholarship be validated and be communicated to publics beyond the University will sustain a uniformly high standard. In some fields, refereed journals and monographs are the traditional media for communication and peer validation; in others, exhibitions and performances. In still other fields, emerging technologies are creating, and will continue to create, entirely new media and methods. In consideration for promotion and tenure, scholarship and creative activity are not merely to be enumerated but are to be carefully, objectively, and rigorously evaluated by professional peers, including ones external to the University.

While open to interpretation, one can say that not only does (the other, other) OSU support scholarship in all of its possible forms, but that scholarship should be evaluated in the context of the communication method. More importantly, scholarship must be "communicated in appropriate ways so as to have impact on or significance for publics beyond the University, or for the discipline itself."

I am now the Chair of the P&T Committee I sent my letter to 12-years ago. I have found, however, that getting a dialog going is much easier said then done. I now realize the foundation of the culture of scholarship lies at the full professor level. Still, I was able to get a dialog moving by arranging the first ever meeting between P&T and the full professors. Hopefully, changes will not take another 12 years.

Transitioning to the Digital Dossier

2009-03-15T15:06:00.023-05:00

The past few years have been filled with numerous analog to digital transitions. Why not propose another?

Each year I am responsible for generating a Faculty Annual Report (FAR). The FAR is essentially a core dossier that contains narrative focusing on my activities over the past year.

In 1994, my FAR was generated by photo copying documents from one year to the next and adding new items in with a typewriter (!). The image on the right is my first FAR. Word processing templates were phased in a few years later which allowed me to cut and paste content electronically.

My dossier and associated CV are used as documentation of my activities for the purposes of promotion and tenure review. More specifically, they provide critical information for external peer-reviewers.

While the dossier I create is technically digital, the processes used to communicate and distribute the document treat it as if it were analog. External reviewers receive a print dossier along with printed copies of scholarly materials via snail mail. Since the dossier is a flat text file, even if sent has an attachment the reviewer still needs to cut and paste URLs.

With all the connectivity to content that we now have, academia really needs to rethink the dossier paradigm and transition it from analog to digital. I speculate that this transition WILL happen in the next few years anyway, why shouldn't academic librarians be the first?

With a digital dossier:

The only information that would be sent to an external reviewer would be a single URL. I think I'm making a reasonable assumption here that MOST academic librarians are online and would prefer digital rather than have a stack of paper. The reviewers could generate the paper versions, if that is the format they prefer.
All network-based content (e.g. web sites, blogs) would be hyperlinked and navigated to though the digital dossier. This would allow certain scholarly communications to be viewed and interacted with in their native formats (side bar: I once had an interactive web site printed off and sent to external reviewers).
Traditional content would be made accessible through the use of any combination of OpenURL / Link Resolvers / DOI. Most academic librarians have online access to a growing amount of published literature. Why print content off when it can be linked?
Content in open access publications or stored in institutional repositories could also be linked.
Presentation materials stored on services such as SlideShare could also be linked.
Sure, the evaluation of monographs would be a problem - in the short term.

Over the past few years, Ohio State has been developing an expertise system called OSU:Pro. Your university may have built a similar system to store and build dossiers. The wonderful thing about OSU:Pro, and other expertise solutions, are their potential to create a digital dossier.

We aren't there - yet. All the materials are still printed off and sent through the mail. The argument I hear is that paper is provided for the convenience of the reviewer. They can throw it in their briefcase and take it with them. I think the ubiquity of the Internet pretty much cancels out that argument these days.

Serving as an external evaluator takes a good deal of time. I know I would be more willing to serve if it were easier to access all the supporting documentation online. However, the barriers to the digital dossier are primarily of a cultural, historical, and work flow nature - not technical.

Repurposing 23 Things for Health Sciences Educators?!

2009-03-04T17:14:00.001-05:00

"23 Things" is a library staff development learning concept centered on social collaboration tools. It was conceived by Helene Blowers in 2006, and libraries and library organizations of all sizes and types have adapted the idea for their own staff. The focus of the program is a hands-on, self-directed, and innovative way to introduce staff, volunteers, trustees, and others to Web 2.0 tools like blogs and wikis.

This afternoon I 'attended' a 2-hour 23 Things Summit that had over 250 participants. The summit consisted of 'presentations' from several successful programs who shared their best practices and lessons learned. I am not going to spend any more time on the summit since you can revisit it here. (Note: the number of attendees Twittering the event made the summit a trending topic on Twittersearch and Twittergrid, )

I think we now have enough anecdotal and survey evidence to say that the program is a success in the library community. Both the technical knowledge and technology learning behaviors of participants does change by the end of the program. Great job to all!

As an academic librarian, however, I have noticed that the same concerns and issues that lead to he development of 23 Things within the library community also exist in colleges and departments across our campus. Colleges and departments are being pressured more and more to include social and Web 2.0 technologies into their educational experiences. In fact, I have a introductory meeting tomorrow to discuss a 'social networking strategy' for our college of medicine.

My first response to the meeting request that I received last week was essentially "it is great to have a strategy, but it will not be effective if the faculty don't understand or know how to use the tools. We need to come up with a way to get them engaged."

About 90 minutes into the summit a light bulb went off. It was was an exciting 'AHA' moment.

What I will be discussing at the meeting tomorrow is the idea of '23 Things for Health Sciences Educators.' It will essentially be a re-purposing of the 23 Things concept for the continuing education of health sciences faculty. What's that? Sure, library staff can participate as well!

The more I think about it I think this is an idea worth pursuing grant funds for. I also felt that idea is the way to go once I realized something. The audience I am looking at is the health sciences. The program is called 23 Things. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. I see the logo now, a double helix. With such a neat theme the program would have to be successful!

If this is such a good idea, why am I telling you and giving away my great idea? Perhaps, it is to find some possible collaborators to move this idea to a state, NLM midwest region, or national initiative? At the very least, it is to document the idea...

Can High Density Barcodes Connect the Mobile Library User?

2009-02-23T09:05:00.012-05:00

I wrote about QR codes and their possible role within libraries about two years ago. I also discussed QR codes at the 2008 Medical Library Association conference on the Tech Trends panel and more recently discussed how they were being used at the 2009 Detroit Auto Show.

I thought I needed to bring up the topic once again when Educause sent out The 7 Things You Should Know About QR Codes the other day.

While conventional bar codes can store about 20 digits of information, a single QR (quick response) code is capable of handling 7,089 characters including numeric and alphabetic characters, symbols, and binary data. One can store just about anything as a QR code, including images. QR codes are quite durable since the allow up to 30% of the code to be obscured or removed by dirt, marks or damage and still readable. The nice thing is that there are many online services which generate QR codes and they can be printed as a graphic image. The QR code is an established ISO (ISO/IEC18004) standard.

Another emerging high density bar code technology is the Microsoft Tag, which uses up to eight-different colored triangles which are aligned left to right with each shape placed from point to base or vice versa. That combination of colors and orientation of the triangles creates distinct patterns which can be read by piece of software which deciphers the data. Up to 3,500 characters of information can be held in the Tag.

High density bar codes like QR codes and Microsoft Tag can both serve a similar function: linking the physical to networked resources for either objects or locations. Librarians could put these bar codes on handouts could direct customers directly to databases, a journal article or a current bibliography. Codes on various physical services could lead customers to help and tip sheets. Codes on promotional and marketing materials could lead customers to library resources.

As Educause points out, the greatest importance of high density bar codes like QR codes may not lie not in their specific use, which may be superseded by newer codes and interpreters, but in the opportunities they offer for moving away from keyboards as input devices in learning environments. This will grow in importance as library users rely more and more upon mobile devices.

Does Font Make a Difference in the Effectiveness of Library Handouts?

2009-02-17T15:25:00.011-05:00

Every so often a handout or document published by a library comes across my desk that makes me squint or shake my head. The problem is frequently with bad design, colors, or layout. Many times the problem is when the author, trying to be cute or unique, decides to use a fancy font. Even at my library I'll make the argument that a simple sans serif font like Arial should be used. It is not uncommon for the reaction to be a look of "what do you know? You're not a graphic artist!"

Well, I have found research to back up my point of view.

A University of Michigan psychologist and grad student, Norbert Schwarz and Hyunjin Song, wanted to see if they could motivate a group of 20-year-old college students to exercise regularly. The students were given written instructions for a regular exercise routine. Some were given instructions printed in Arial, a plain font; others got the instructions in a Brush font, looking as if it was written by hand with a Japanese paintbrush. The Ariel font was easier to read then the unfamiliar and much harder to read Brush font.

The outcome was that the students receiving the Arial font instructions were more enthusiastic about the exercise routine than those receiving them in the Brush font. The psychologists repeated the experiment using a sushi roll recipe and saw similar results. The authors noted:

Apparently the students’ brains mistook the ease of reading about exercise for the ease of actually doing push-ups and crunches, and this misunderstanding motivated them to think about a life change. Those who struggled through the Japanese brushstrokes had no intention of heading to the gym; the reading alone tired them out.

While the fonts used in the study were dramatically different, the research does indicate that font choice can impact the effectiveness of library handouts.

Hyunjin Song, Norbert Schwarz (2008). If It's Hard to Read, It's Hard to Do: Processing Fluency Affects Effort Prediction and Motivation Psychological Science, 19 (10), 986-988 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x

New Responsibilities: Emerging Technology

2009-02-09T09:33:00.000-05:00

Over the past year, I have been working with library leadership on the creation of a new role for me within our Library system. As is the case in many Universities, the health sciences library I work at is administratively separate from the main University Libraries (OSUL) . While a part of the libraries system, our only formal relationship with OSUL is though our faculty appointments.

The piece which took a little while to work through is an experimental and very interesting (and innovative?) job/time swap with OSUL. My new position description is below.

One of the challenges I saw in our library is that we simply do not have enough librarians to do a great job on many of the new information services and initiatives underway, such as a liaison program and what I call embedded reference. I also have observed from a distance that OSUL could benefit from more hands to handle IT-oriented projects. Additionally, I observed that both organizations were further challenged trying to keep staff up-to-date with various technologies.

So, as I was building the job description, I proposed the idea of a time swap in which I would work with OSUL and that a subject librarian from OSUL would assist with the new information services. This is the first time during my 16-year-tenure here that such an arrangement with OSUL has been suggested or made. The OSUL leadership was very supportive of the idea and have been really accommodating. The timing was perfect since the President of the University has been touting the idea of 'one campus' over the past year.

I know there are others out there with a similar title and responsibilities, and in some ways we are late to the party. But, we made it....

Emerging Technologies and Services Specialist

25% Spearheads efforts to enhance services through implementation of innovative customer-centered solutions; integrates technologies such as social networking, virtual reference, mobile technologies, and other Web 2.0 applications; directs cross-department project-oriented implementation teams; investigates and obtains external funding and serves as the Principal Investigator on related projects; participates in collaborative emerging technology projects within the University Libraries, the Colleges of the Health Sciences, the Medical Center, the Office of CIO, and TELR; collaborates in the design of assessment tools.

20% Shares knowledge about emerging and emergent technologies through formal and informal educational activities; collaborates with educational technology specialists in the application of emergent technologies in instructional and research activities; prepares presentations for leadership groups; serves as a resource for subject specialists / liaisons in the identification and application of technologies within their disciplines; creates customer-centered materials and activities as needed.

20% Serves as an emerging technologies specialist for the University Libraries; works closely and in consort with University Libraries IT Department leadership.

20% Faculty unassigned time for research, scholarship and professional service activities.

15% Serves as an explorer of, and champion for, the use of emerging and emergent technologies as part of the Prior Health Sciences Library and Center for Knowledge Management’s commitment to research, instruction, and knowledge transfer; keeps current in the latest developments in library technology, web-based support, and other emerging technologies; serves as a staff expert on technological trends and equipment in the marketplace and will articulate how these trends will impact and enhance the services;

TechTips: The Blog

2009-02-04T15:49:00.020-05:00

Over the past two months or so, I have been emailing various technology related tips and tidbits to the students, staff, and faculty of The Ohio State University Libraries' system. The motivation to research, write, and communicate these TechTips came after many hallway conversations. It seemed to me that there was a growing need for our staff for a regular dose of emerging technology talk.

The first TechTips were sent as email messages to gauge interest, plus, I know virtually everyone reads their email. Based on all the great feedback I received on the email version, I decided to set up "TechTips: The Blog." ( RSS ) to publish, archive, and syndicate the TechTips.

While many of the TechTips I publish on the TechTips blog may seem old technology and concepts to many readers of this blog, it will be the first time that many OSUL staff have read or heard about them. Perhaps for your staff as well.

I have a couple other ideas in the works relating to other staff technology education initiatives that I will make sure to communicate while they still aren't quite ready.

Short Code Texting Services in Libraries

2009-01-27T14:49:00.003-05:00

Chances are if you are into texting on your mobile phone you have sent a message to a five or six digit ‘phone’ number (such as to 32665 to update your Facebook status).

Long popular outside of the US, short codes are being used for a variety of value-added services such as television voting, ordering ring tones, charity donations and mobile device-centric services. My last post was about how short codes were being used at the Detroit Auto Show.

My first experience using a short code was during the Blue Man Group’s first 'How to be a Megastar' tour over three years ago. BMG used texting /short code technology to allow audience interaction with the story line / show. More recently, President Obama alerted over 1 million people about his VP selection to those that sent the text ‘VP” to 62262.

I did a little research to get a better understanding how short codes work.

Legacy phone numbers make use of prefix codes since conventional landline technology has no way of indicating the end of the phone number. On mobile phones, however, all the numbers are sent at once. Since the mobile network knows the end of the dialed number, short codes can be used without conflicting with a longer prefixed number. For instance, a landline could not use the short code 12345, since then one could then not dial the phone number 1 234 5XX XXXX, or any other number that shared the 12345 prefix for that matter. There is no such ambiguity with mobile phones.

Short codes can be associated with a specific carrier or they can be registered as a common short code (CSC) that is available on most carriers. A short code directory is available.

Many libraries are using texting services, such as the Carmel Clay (IN) Public Library, Yale, and the Carroll County Public Library, to name a few that came up first on my Google search. There are also other creative ways in which texting could be used to not only provide services, but market the library. All the library texting services I uncovered use 'shared code service' such as those available from a large number of services which include Kwiry, Tagga, Mozes and Textmarks.

Registering and leasing a specific CSC for a library (non-shared) is costly. Registering the vanity number (e.g. 77467, PRIOR for our library) would costs $1,000 per month; $500 for a random short code number. Paying $12,000 a year for a texting service would seem out of reach for many libraries. The library would then need to negotiate activation and sign an agreement with each wireless carriers before the library can connect to their network and begin sending message traffic. Working with connectivity aggregators that have existing contracts with the wireless service providers may facilitate this process. Using a shared service seems to make economic sense.

Are you using a short code service in your library? I would love to hear about what you are using and your experience.

Information Technology in Use at Detroit Auto Show

2009-01-20T12:11:00.022-05:00

My buddy Jeff and I drove up to the Detroit Auto Show this past Monday. While we were there to see all the new automobile technology (everyone had an electric / hybrid car of some sort), what caught my attention was the increased use of information technology, specifically that which makes use of mobile devices, although few manufacturers were using it.

The first manufacturer we saw upon entering was Ford. We worked our way back to the new Mustang, which was on a rotisserie so you could see the undercarriage. It was there where I notice at the bottom of an information sheet the note "for more information online, text MUSTANG to KWIRY 59479)".

So I did, although I was concerned that I would start getting junk text messages from Ford. The text I received back suggested that I either reply to that message with my email address or go to a website. I knew I didn't want junk email, so I went to the web site. Which contained literally nothing. Still a good idea to get to supplemental materials, if it worked.

(When I got home, I looked up Kwiry. Their marketing slogan is "see it? hear it? text it before you forget it!" Kwiry support many different inputs and outputs. I am still playing around with this service and will post about it soon. )

The other information technology which was in use at the auto show was QR codes. KIA was the only manufacturer to make use of it. Not only were the codes used on signage, but they included them on their printed materials. Unfortunately, there is still no QR Code reader for my Sprint Instinct. While QR Codes have become commonplace in Asia, support here in the states is extremely limited. This is too bad since I see a great deal of useful applications for them in libraries. Below is one that links to the URL of The Ohio State University Libraries web site. If I could only test it.

Microblogging the US Airways Miracle

2009-01-16T09:03:00.007-05:00

There was an interesting article in the Guardian about how the Hudson River plane crash provided yet more proof about how interconnected and connected we are. The most immediate and compelling reports and images of the event did not come from the media, but from citizens.

This approach has been referred to as mobcasting or citizen media reporting like that which occurred during the Virginia Tech tragedy, the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, or even a power outage that occurred yesterday in Toronto. A person even twittered while still on a plane as it burned on the runway in Denver in December 2008. Heck, even Santa Twittered.

The news about the Hudson River crash was all over Twitter within minutes. One of the earliest reports came from New Yorker who uploaded a photo of the plane floating in the river (Note: Everyone in the world is trying to access it, so the site is VERY slow and the 'reporter get their 15 minutes of fame) Within minutes, Twitter friends were repeating (retweeting) the plane crash messages or had found the original post using the Twitter search service.

Netbooks: The Next Mobile Trend

2009-01-09T18:50:00.008-05:00

As a gadget lover, I always wished I had the travel budget to go to the Consumer Electronics Show. It is the place to see what technology is emerging and will possibly impact library services 2-3 years out.

This year's top technology may be Netbooks, tiny laptops could soon be as ubiquitous as mobile phones. Netbooks are low-powered portables that offer web-based email, office and other services -a cloud computing device.

Netbooks, which have screens measuring 7-10 inches and weighing around 2 lbs, are being marketed at people who want to be able to surf the web on the go and always have access to email and social networking sites. Netbooks are defined by their low cost, many selling for under $600, and in a very compact form factor.

Nearly all offer several USB ports, a webcam, LED backlit screens, integrated speakers, and Wi-Fi. The next generation Netbooks should include touch-screens and GPS navigation.

Sound interesting? Here are 5 tips on buying a Netbook.

Journal of Access Services Jumps the Shark, Pt. 2

2008-12-15T12:45:00.002-05:00

Yes, this topic is old. It was discussed last month - a lifetime in blog years. Not to beat the dead horse, but I continue to be concerned over the decision to use an issue of the Journal of Access Services to publish posts from an anonymous blogger.

My concern has nothing to do with the blogger. The constitution gives them the right to write what they want. My concern continues to focus on the editorial decision to publish this issue.

In response to a post by Wayne Bivens-Tatum, whom edited the much discussed journal issue, T Scott (who has edited a LIS journal) comments:

As I said in my post on the matter (http://tscott.typepad.com/tsp/2008/11/too-predictable-to-be-annoying.html) I'm fond of the Annoyed Librarian as well. But I find the decision to devote a quarterly issue of a supposedly peer-reviewed journal to a collection of edited blog posts to be somewhat bizarre. For those of us who don't have access to your introductory essay, I wonder if you might explain why you think this was a sensible move?

Wayne's response:

...that's a very good question. It is bizarre, but I don't see that one satirical issue of one journal amounts to that much."

"The journal issue was the idea of the journal editor, though. I don't know the motive. I'd have to look back through emails to make sure, but as I understand it the journal already had a regular humor column. Perhaps the AL special issue was supposed to be an extension of that."

The issue editor thought is was bizarre but didn't think one satirical issue of one journal amounts to much. What?! Would any peer-reviewed journal in any other profession ever make the decision to publish a satirical issue? Would we ever see The New England Journal of Medicine decide to post a series of satirical essays from Dr. Phil? We want our profession to be taken seriously but then are willing to compromise standards. In this case, in order to get some publicity?

Wayne's decision to edit the issue and not question the journal editor was likely out of a sense of service to the profession. However, the decision still undermines the credibility of the Journal of Access Services and further erodes the perception of Haworth Press in general. This should be of a major concern since a significant number of LIS titles are Haworth titles. As a member of a promotion and tenure committee, I do not know if I could ever again think of JAS as 'quality' publication, although some would argue that I shouldn't have to begin with.

Is a Green Ocean Strategy Needed for Libraries?

2008-12-11T09:57:00.012-05:00

Our medical center leadership has embraced the Blue Ocean Strategy as introduced by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne. As a result, our library has also begun to use the metaphor presented in the book in our planning processes.

Red oceans represent all the products and services in existence today - the known market space. In red oceans, boundaries are defined and accepted, and the competitive rules of the game are well understood. Organizations try to outperform their competition in order to grab a greater share of existing demand. As the space gets more and more crowded, products turn into commodities, and increasing competition turns the water bloody. Picture sharks in the water.

Blue oceans represent all the products and services not in existence today - the unknown market space. In blue oceans, demand is created rather than fought over. There are two ways to create blue oceans. In a few cases, organizations can give rise to completely new products and services. But in most cases, a blue ocean is created from within a red ocean when a company alters the boundaries of an existing product or service. Blue ocean strategy is all about doing business where there is no competitor.

For generations, libraries existed in blue ocean space. I would argue that many of the services that libraries provide now exist in the red ocean.

Let's say that a library creates a product or service in blue ocean space. For example, traditional reference services. For generations, reference librarians were alone in this information space. Along came the Internet. The tides shifted this service from the blue ocean into the red ocean. Traditional reference services now have to compete with Google in this space. The Blue Ocean Strategy suggests that organizations need move away from red oceans and should identify new service and product spaces. This approach is also consistent with Clayton Christensen's disruptive technology theory.

However, I believe that the greatest challenge facing libraries may not be in identifying new blue ocean strategies. Yes, that is a difficult task in itself. The much more difficult task may be the ability to identify when a product and service that was in blue ocean space is starting to drift into the red ocean. The problem is that while the red ocean is easy to enter, it is hard to survive. What an organization needs to either avoid, or knowingly enter, the red ocean is what I call the Green Ocean Strategy.

(NOTE 1: OK. Yes, I know. Red and blue make purple. I went with green to conjure up an image of murky, algae infested waters. This color wheel inconsistency aside, I have never seen naturally occurring purple waterways, but have seen green. NOTE 2: This concept is not even half-baked, so I am interested in feedback. NOTE 3: This is a different concept than the similarly named environmental approach also derived from the book)

Perhaps the hardest thing an organization can do is to spot when the tidal shift between the blue and red oceans is underway. The ability to navigate through these waters requires the organization to make hard decisions. Does it complete in the red ocean, pull out of the waterway, or does it modify the product or service so that it is back in the blue ocean?

Making such decisions is complicated by the fact that significant resources and investments have been made to get into the blue ocean space.The decision to reallocate resources or eliminating products and services after significant investments have been made becomes extremely difficult to do. However, a Green Ocean Strategy would appear to be required to help guide the transition and prepared the organization to make those very hard decisions about whether when a service/product is ready to jump the shark.

A complicating factor is that the Green Ocean has relatively calm waters. There are no rapids to alert the organization that a tidal shift has begun. The service or product simply drifts slowly into the red ocean until the organization wakes up one day, surprised, and surrounded by sharks. The organization may become paralyzed and unable to make a quick enough decision to get them back into the blue ocean.

Lastly, sometimes an organization wears colored glasses which tricks itself into believing that they are still in the blue ocean when they are really in the red. They become so emotionally attached to the service or product they they do not see, or simply ignore the sharks. The auto industry is learning this nautical lesson the hard way. When you look at their situation, what they lacked was an effective Green Ocean Strategy.

Are libraries simply allowing too many services to drift into the red ocean and land up spending too many resources fighting off the sharks? Instead, should we be spending more time coming up with a Green Ocean Strategy that includes concepts such as planned obsolescence or service life-cycles that acknowledges the perils of living in the red ocean?

Faculty Acknowledge Blogs Contribute to Scholarly Communication

2008-12-01T07:55:00.011-05:00

One of my more recent hot topics is the need for librarians to expand how we define our own scholarly communications to keep up with changes in the practice of librarianship. A new report by the Ithaka Group being distributed by ARL explores how (non-librarian) faculty / scholars are making use of digital scholarly resources in the course of research. In the report entitled Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication, authors Nancy Maron and Kirby Smith detail the various digital resources that expands the definition of what is a scholarly resource. Such resources include electronic-only data, e-journals, and blogs.

The report states that blogs are “being put to interesting use by scholars” and contribute to scholarship by providing a forum for discussion. Faculty acknowledge that blog postings allow scholars to share research findings and open up a dialog that can help to further shape and refine their ideas. Blogs can add a layer of commentary to published literature and can give frequent updates of researchers’ opinions rather than just facts and can also attract well established, well known writers in specific disciplines.

While any scholar can use digital communications tools to post their ideas and share them with others, old traditions of establishing scholarly legitimacy through credentialing, peer review, and citation metrics still remain paramount. Although there have been many innovations such as open peer-review, many scholars still choose not to take advantage of these new innovations and continue to publish traditional articles.

Issues of informality and not having a traditional peer-review process are still keeping blogs and scholarly social networks from being accepted as creditable scholarly communication. Still, blogs still can offer faculty / scholars the lowest cost model for quickly communicating their ideas and to receive quick feedback.

Moving Towards an Innovative Library

2008-11-24T13:37:00.013-05:00

I have been working for a couple months on a graphic that represents the elements of innovative library organizations. The one I came up with was inspired by that which appeared in The Game Changer.

The graphic below depicts a continuum of six concepts which are vital to building a more innovative organization.

Inspiring Leadership

In trying to determine where the continuum in the above model begins, I decided it begins with leadership. Leadership sets the tone for everything that a library does. Innovation is all about change. During times of change an organization will be unstable, characterized by confusion, fear, a temporary loss of direction, reduced personal productivity, and a general lack of clarity about the organization's direction and mandates. A time of change can be a period filled with emotion, with employees focusing on what is changing and being lost and therefore unable to look into beyond the present and into the future. Employees not only need to have confidence in their leadership so they have someone to look to during times of change, they need to be inspired by them.

While a director or formal management group may be the most visible leaders, most library organizations have leaders throughout. Innovative organizations would also seem to have a higher number of change agents and idea champions. As Helene Blowers points out, Innovation starts with 'I.' The challenge is identifying innovation leaders, cultivating their potential, and empowering them to act. While these individuals may not be leaders in the hierarchical sense, they are extremely important leaders in building staff buy-in and moving ideas ahead. It therefore takes inspiring leadership to spot and cultivate organizational leaders.

Courageous Culture

If leadership is the starting point of the innovative continuum, then creating a courageous culture is the foundation. A climate and culture that conducive to innovation will generally be open to change, willing to take risks, tolerant of debate and disagreement, playful, will stress flexibility, adaptability, and celebrate both individual and group achievements and failures.

When it comes to implementing innovative change, there is an inevitable resistance as individuals discover that they may be giving something up. In many organizations, simply suggesting a change is often met with a negative attitude. Nothing is more deadening to the innovative process than having idea shot down even before it has a chance. A change in culture, behavior patterns and how change is approached are critical to moving towards an innovative organization.

Training and Development

Sir Francis Bacon is quoted as saying "Knowledge is Power." Indeed, innovative organizations have knowledgeable staff equipped with the skills they need to innovate and perform. An organization looking to become more innovative should expect, no, require that it's staff advances their understanding and broaden their point of view beyond their individual responsibilities.

To that end, many library organizations are moving towards a competency-based assessment system which recognizes individualized learning styles and methods. In this model, every employee and their supervisor should be accountable for continuous learning with training goals spelled out in annual performance reviews. Exploring and refining new skills, ideally outside of their area of expertise, should be of high value to the organization.

Enabling Organizational Structures

Most mature organizations, and libraries certainly are that, reach a sustaining level where the focus is on efficiency. Employees are slotted into specialized roles and are gathered together in social groups based on those roles and the resulting processes. Therefore, each employee's web of social connections mirrors the way their work is organized. As Chris Trimble points out, most social connections are made with others with closely related specialties, which share similar perspectives, and are shaped by the demands of the same customers.

Being a part of a particular social network for a prolonged period of time does influence individuals in significant ways, such as internalizing the "ways of thinking" (groupthink) of that network. Yet, innovation initiatives are often most successful when there is an unusual interaction between employees. How do many brainstorming or strategic planning sessions start off? By counting off and creating new groups. Otherwise, people tend to organize into the same social groups.

Organizations that are unstable, or responding to instability, are also more likely to innovate. A constant of slight discomfort gets individuals out of their comfort zones, gets them talking to one another, and can create new connections where none previously existed. Trimble states:

"Breaking networks is the only way to prepare an organization to take innovation efforts beyond mere ideas. You can train an individual about what an innovation is and why it demands different behavior, but you can't retrain an organization simply by training the individuals within it. The individuals may acquire knowledge, but organizations are more powerful than individuals..."

Streamlined Processes

Andrew Van De Ven observes that people and organizations are largely designed to focus on, harvest, and protect existing practices than paying attention to developing new ideas. The more successful an organization is, the more difficult this becomes. Clayton Christensen echoes this theory. While the process of conceiving an idea may be an individual activity, innovation is a collective achievement of pushing and riding those ideas.

Transforming innovation into practice involves so many individuals that those involved may lose sight of the big picture. Innovation transforms the structure and practices of an organization. The challenge is creating a culture where process does not get in the way of innovation.

Resource Reallocation

Many innovative ideas die simply due to limited resources. While resources are often equated with dollars, resources also refers to the reallocation of time, people, materials, existing equipment, and assistance. To become more innovative, inspired library leaders need to reposition staff to support innovative projects and programs, through new hires and reassignments where appropriate.

The efforts of staff that develop successful systems should also be rewarded. Innovation activities need to be recognized when decisions are made about merit increases, promotions, and even tenure decisions. If such rewards exist, then more staff will be interested in engaging in innovative activities. In the end, participation in the development of innovative solutions needs to become a vital part of the librarian's career track, and as such, should be reflected in how the librarians work, and resulting scholarship, is defined and evaluated.

Journal Of Access Services Jumps the Shark

2008-11-18T11:35:00.019-05:00

I may be in the minority that feels that (tenure track) librarians need to change how we define scholarship. Until there is a paradigm / culture shift, the peer-reviewed journal will remain one of the gold standards. However, the integrity of the entire system is built upon maintaining the quality of our journals.

It is of great concern when I see a refereed journal, either intentionally or inadvertently, set aside their standards. This appears to have happened with Haworth’s Journal of Access Services. The journal's editor recently decided to dedicate all of Vol 5(4) to a series of essays written by an 'anonymous' blogger. [I refuse to acknowledge this person by pseudonym]

[For the purpose of full disclosure, I am unable to independently assess the quality of the issue's content since the electronic version title is currently embargoed. Doing so would be like reviewing a movie without screening it. However, I am not focusing on the content but the editor's decision.]

When I put on my hats as both a scholar and the the Chair of our promotion and tenure committee, the decision by the editor and publisher creates a crack in the foundation of our profession's scholarly communication. It is as if the editor of the American Psychologist decided to dedicate an issue to the essays of Dr. Phil.

There are so many problems with this decision that I do not know where to start. I think I will let others highlight them for me.

Chadwick Seagraves observes: (make sure to read his entire post!)

Ponder this. This Journal now gives legitimacy to an anonymous writer, in a professionally sanctioned and sponsored serial...You know, you come to expect some level of authority from peer reviewed journals. Does this mean I can submit articles under my own pseudonyms and be potentially accepted for publication in the Journal of Access Services? Apparently it does...the beginning of the end of the authority of peer review is now here

Rudilibrarian notes:

Has scholarship in librarianship grown so weak that AL is now the best of what’s out there? Is this what passes for reasoned argument? Is Access Services so devoid of smart people doing interesting work that this is the best the journal could find to publish? It seems like one of the premier publishing houses in the field of LIS thinks so.

Mary Carmen Chimato comments:

I would like to take a moment to thank the Journal of Access Services for driving home the point that the work we do here in access services is ripe for the mocking

From Colleen Harris:

You have just admitted that you are not a scholarly journal to be taken seriously. And as someone moving back over to Access after a long stint away, I'll be certain to send my work to the Journal of Library Administration, the Journal of Academic Librarianship, or hell, even to that cute little kid 'zine Highlights before I let my professional work be associated with you.

Karen Glover is saddened:
I assumed this was a joke but am slowing beginning to realize the seriousness of it. I will not begin to complain about what this does to scholarship. I will, however, complain about what this does to Access Services... I am left feeling like the butt of a library joke. It saddens me that the one avenue of thoughtful discussion on subjects in my area is reduced to an extended tirade
At least one of the e ditorial board members was even unaware that this decision was made before seeing the issue themselves.

My guess is that that the editor a) decided to take advantage of the recent attention given to the 'guest' author to promote their journal; or b) was duped; or c) seriously thinks the author offers a fresh voice. The impact this decision could have on the state of our scholarly communication could be profound, assuming anyone notices, or even cares. It makes our 'profession' more amateurish.

Lastly, I applaud the bloggers quoted above for not hiding their opinions behind the veil of anonymity (although it took digging to identify Rudy Leon).

Personal Health Records Need MARC/AACR Approach, I Think

2008-11-17T21:32:00.002-05:00

I attended an IT Innovation in Healthcare conference in town today. Practically the entire morning was spent talking about the personal health record (PHR) and related electronic medical record (EMR). While the EMR is information about your health compiled by your health care providers, the PHR is maintained by you. The ideal PHR would gather data from many sources and making this information accessible online to anyone who has the necessary electronic credentials to view it.

The discussion centered around the fact that it is very difficult to move information between systems. The challenge is the lack of standards. The various PHR and EMR systems don't talk to one another. This got me thinking. The health care industry needs to take some lessons from the library community and establish some data standards.

Libraries got over the hump from a paper-based to an electronic catalog in part since we had two tools to work from; AACR and MARC. AACR covers the description of, and the provision of access points for, all library materials. MARC provides the protocol by which computers exchange, use, and interpret bibliographic information and is responsible for the foundation of the online catalogs we have today. Add on top of this Z39.50 like functionality and we have a basis for a PHR system which could do what it is envisioned to do; harvest and syndicate content between other records systems.

There is, however, a bigger challenge. As I bounced this concept off of a CIO of a major academic medical center, they said those standards are in place. They have SNOMED.

The librarians out there will immediately see the problem with the response. For the CIOs out there, well, please have your librarian explain it to you.

100 Days Until Analog TV Turns to Snow

2008-11-10T21:10:00.012-05:00

100 days from today the television broadcast technology that has served us for nearly three generations will be shut down. On February 17, 2009 all full-power broadcast television stations in the US will stop broadcasting on analog airwaves and begin broadcasting only in digital.

The first television image was broadcast back in 1924, John Logie Baird transmitted a picture of the Maltese Cross. The TV system he developed was a mechanical system with a resolution of only 30 lines. It was the disruptive technology of the day. His 1928 trans-atlantic transmission of the image of a human face (right) was a broadcasting milestone.

In 1936, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) adopted a technology using the electronic television technology of EMI and began the first regular high resolution service of 405 lines per. It was the technology that won over Baird's.

Cable television was started by appliance store owners John and Margaret Walson in the spring of 1948 in the Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania. Local residents had problems receiving the three nearby Philadelphia network stations with local antennas because of the region's surrounding mountains. Walson erected an antenna on a local mountain to get signals from Philadelphia and connected the antennae to his appliance store via a cable and modified signal boosters. Eventually the signal was sent to his customer's homes.

Does the Innovation-Decision Process Impact Library Innovation?

2008-10-31T12:59:00.007-05:00

It occurs to me that while libraries DO want to innovate our service development lifecycles are way too long to be really innovative. We wait until a technology has emerged before we even start learning about it. We then investigate possible service applications of a technology only when a majority of the staff are comfortable. Adding onto the lifecycle is the need to build consensus during the planning process and making sure the service is perfect before releasing it.

So, the question I keep asking colleagues is if libraries could speed up the service development lifecycle if we were more proactive in providing awareness and how-to knowledge about innovative / disruptive technologies / services as they were emerging, rather than waiting until they emerged?

The latest book on innovation I have opened up is Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations. One section jumped out at me since it was a mashup of the innovation theme with library decision making process. Or, as defined by Rogers, the innovation-decision process:

The innovation-decision process is essentially an information-seeking information-processing activity in which the individual is motivated to reduce uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of an innovation. This is a social process involving talking to others.

Rogers describes three types of innovation related knowledge.

Awareness-knowledge is simply information that the innovation exists. This information simply motivates than individual to seek out How-To Knowledge, which consists of how to use the innovation 'properly.' This is an essential type since rejection may occur if the amount of information relative to the complexity of the innovation is inadequate. Principles-knowledge consists of information about the underlying functionality of how the innovation works.

What I instinctively liked about the Learning 2.0 approach, and what I now understand, is that its success may be because it contains all three knowledge areas. Participants are made aware of various online tools, are provided and a hands on / how to opportunity to play with each, and by the end the participants should have a conceptual understanding of the underlying principles of Web 2.0 / the social web.

So, it makes sense to me that if a library creates a participatory technology learning environment it would create a more active innovation-decision process, which would then speed up the service development lifecycle.

Testing iPhone App

2008-10-29T15:21:00.001-05:00

I just installed a blog writing application on my iPod Touch. While not my preferred method of creating an entry, it may work in a pinch.

I will find out soon if I can save this as a draft to work on later, or if the only option is to post.

Random 2008 LITA National Forum Thoughts

2008-10-24T08:52:00.004-05:00

I attended the 2008 LITA National Forum in Cincinnati the other weekend. This was my first time attending the forum. It was nice to have a conference nearby given the recent cuts in travel allocations.

I participated in my first Forum by writing a series of posts for the LITA blog including Tim Spalding's keynote, a discussion about IT Management, the implementation of Library Labs, and the development of a Homegrown CMS. I was a bit frustrated by the number of typos that got through. The spellchecker on WordPress wasn't working on my Mac (kept getting javascript error) and I am used to going back into my published posts to make minor edits. (Which I have already done three times to this post)

The conference was well run and the communications from the organizers were great. The facilities were very nice, although open wireless access was non-existent in many of the breakout rooms. The hotel also seemed to turn off the 'default' service at the end of the sessions. At least the hotel provided 'free' wired Internet to attendees.

One thing I really liked about the Forum was that the conference planners put on a fairly green event. Participants only received two handouts: a USB key containing all he conference materials (thanks to Serials Solutions) and a badge. No packets of vendor materials. No printed conference program. No bag! Almost all conference materials including schedules, handouts, and PowerPoint's were made available prior to the conference. Participants were encouraged to print off what they needed. I just downloaded the materials to my laptop or just popped in the USB key. The wiki was also very helpful! This is in stark contrast to most conferences in which one receives literally pounds of paper, much of which goes into the garbage (hoping the hotel recycles!).

The Forum is described as a "highly regarded annual event for those involved in new and leading edge technologies in the library and information technology field." There were some interesting topics presented such as the management of web site redesigns, content management systems, and IT Dept. However, based solely on what I saw and heard at this one conference, it not for technology-oriented librarians looking for leading edge innovative solutions. (I guess I have to get myself up to Access one of these years.) Instead, the conference would seem to serve a very good niche for those responsible for managing virtual public services and are looking for already emergent technology solutions.

Did I have too high of expectations for the conference content? Probably. Did I expect a higher technology level of attendees? Probably. Case in point. In one session, the speaker asked how many of the 30 people in the room heard of Joomla. Two of us raised our hands. With that said, experiencing both Tim Spalding and Michael Porter presentations for the first time was worth the price of admission.

The Annoyed Librarian: Unmasked?

2008-10-18T07:03:00.016-05:00

There has been quite a bit of chatter in the blogosphere from Library Journal's recent decision to hire the Annoyed Librarian.

After returning to my hotel room after dinner last night (in Cinci attending the LITA Forum) I had a message awaiting on the hotel phone with the following message:

"There is a very important matter I need to discuss with you. Please meet me in the southeast corner of the lower level of the Mall parking garage across from the hotel at 2 am. I know the identity of the Annoyed Librarian."

After a long night, I may now know the identity of the Annoyed Librarian. And no, it isn't Meredith Farkas.

I left my 11th floor hotel room at around 1:45am, sneaking down the back stairs to alley. I then walked through the shadows and around the dumpsters of the alleyway, making my across the street over into the garage, looking back often making sure I wasn't being followed.

When I arrived to the lower level nobody was there. Fifteen minutes passed, and then a half hour. Then out of the corner of my eye I caught a faint glow. There he was, waiting in a dark corner, huddled against the wall.

" So, you want to know who the Annoyed Librarian is?"

"Well, it could help me to increase the profile of my blog," I said as I took out me phone to update my Facebook status," Why are you wanting to tell me?"

"Your Tim Spalding blog post was the first result that came up when I Googled "2008 LITA Forum blog."

It was obvious that knowing the identify of the Annoyed Blogger had taken its toll. Even when he was in the shadows of the garage I could tell was quite thin and, when the end of his cigarette glowed when he drew on it, his eyes were quite bloodshot.

The man I began to think of as Deep Link then began to sip the drink he had gingerly, then wiped his mouth inelegantly with the back of his hand.

"He ran the blog. Insulating himself through the functionaries around him. This guy is smart and can be smooth if necessary. "

"Wait a second, he?! I thought the Annoyed one was a she! How worried was he that the fact that she was a he would be found out?"

"How worried was he? Worried?" Deep Link began pacing around nervously, his lower jaw seemed to quiver. "The covert activities at LJ involves everybody and are incredible. The cover up has little to do with the blog itself. It is all a publicity stunt thought up by LJ and the Annoyed Librarian."

He walked forward towards me and in front of one of the cars in the garage and, standing erect, placed his gloved hands authoritatively on the hood as if it were a rostrum. Deep Link then confirmed what all the bloggers had missed.

"Michael Gorman"

"You mean the past ALA President that has been called antidigital, elitist, and a luddite by his detractors?"

"Think about it." Deep Link said pulling out copies of posts and looking at them like a dealer studying his hand.

"All the posts about ALA politics and even a mention of him sending fan mail. There was even several attempts to divert any attention away from himself. In fact, if you noticed, the Annoyed Librarian blog started near the end of his term as President. The Annoyed Librarian is his alter ego. Do you think he really retired?"

Deep Link then went on to talk about how politics had infiltrated every corner of LJ, a strong arm takeover, and the frightening implications on how far LJ would go to meet their ends. The involvement of at least 50 undercover LJ operatives.

So what we may be looking at can only be described as GormanGate.

As daylight began to break we parted ways. I sought out the closest LillyPad site to work on this post....

So that is what I know. Please feel to comment if you have other evidence which can help confirm this information.

(thanks to Woodward and Bernstein for the inspiration and an occasional description. EDIT: Sorry Bob! Spellcheck initially changed your name...)

Consensus Building Cripples Library Innovation

2008-10-13T13:41:00.014-05:00

I am not a fan of consensus building, an approach that is common in many, if not most, library organizations. While such an approach can be effective for small groups it has a number of shortcomings in larger groups, or if used to manage an organization.

One of the problems I have with consensus building is that an individual or a small minority can effectively block agreement to a proposal or idea. It unfairly tips the decision-making scales towards a staff member who may simply like the existing conditions, which may continue to exist long after the majority would like the conditions changed. Consensus building has the potential to reward the least accommodating group or staff members while punishing those trying to innovate.

By giving all group or staff members the right to block any idea or proposal, an organization can essentially be held hostage to an inflexible minority or an individual. The impact this has on a library's ability to create innovative library services can be significant since creative or alternative ideas can be blocked or slowed by a small minority.

Consensus building also focuses on the need to discuss the topic ad nauseam and the need to seek the input of anyone would could possibly be affected. This turns decision making into a very time-consuming process. This poses a liability to organizations trying to become more innovative since decisions often need to be made quickly. Since innovative process often result in half -baked solutions, it is simply not feasible to incorporate the opinions of everyone who could be affected in a reasonable period of time.

Library organizations probably migrate to consensus building since they generally want to work towards agreement, not disagreement. Yet, innovative organizations more often create atmospheres in which there is a great deal of disagreement and debate. Staff in innovative organizations learn how to disagree and build up a tolerance for disagreement. In such organizations, everyone is encouraged to act based on their individual motivations, and are rewarded simply for acting, rather than for success or failure. If libraries wish to create a culture innovation, we must 'allow' staff with the desire and energy to act on their own vision. This means that libraries must also empower staff to act by changing the system of rewards and support non-consensus decision-making processes.

Throughout history the most innovative ideas have been in opposition of the consensus opinion. According to Robert S. Root-Bernstein, the decision to go forward with an innovative idea should not be made because everyone agreed that it would work, but instead on different set of criteria:

that it was controversial, striking at the heart of the field. (Libraries tend to want to avoid controversy)
that it hasn’t been tried before and was therefore likely to yield new knowledge regardless of the outcome. (Libraries tend to wait until 'someone else' does it first and publishes it in the literature. And if it fails nobody will ever forget it did.)
that it was designed in such a way that it would easily be seen whether it worked or not (Libraries tend to over-think solutions and make things more complex then they need to be)
that the research was relatively inexpensive compared with the possible pay-off if success were to occur. (See above)
that the idea had a champion (or leader) who was willing and eager to risk his or her time and effort to implement the program. (Libraries support this notion, but there also needed to be a task force or committee with full representation and, oh, there still needs to be a consensus)

Changing Academic Librarianship Scholarship Criteria

2008-10-06T07:44:00.019-05:00

I am privileged to be serving as the Chair of our University Libraries Promotion and Tenure Committee.

In preparation for this responsibility, I have been catching up on various trends relating to scholarship and what is going on at tenure granting academic libraries. There is a great wiki site on the topic that appears to be managed by Chris Lewis, Media Librarian at American University.

Specifically, I have been curious about the criteria used to define and evaluate scholarship in tenure and promotion cases. This post is one of many I expect to write on the topic over the next year.

I have a healthy respect for the need and desire to keep the traditions of the academy. Still, I seem to be wondering aloud alot more lately about the increasing gap between how scholarship in academic librarianship is defined and the practices of the profession. As a profession we talk about the need to be more innovative and make use of emerging technologies. However, how can we ever expect faculty to push the innovation and emerging technology envelopes if the criteria we use to define and evaluate scholarship remains rooted in the dark ages of academia and librarianship?

I applaud a number of libraries in redefine how they define and evaluate scholarship. Here are just a few I uncovered:

From the Florida Atlantic University Libraries Promotion Guidelines:

The research and development of courses or classes in librarianship or a scholarly topic on which the individual has expertise
Obtaining grants and other funding, such as fellowships, internships or study leaves, which benefit the FAU Libraries or librarianship
Developing original computer software or successful adaptations of software for the FAU Libraries or professional uses
Developing original uses of other technologies to enhance FAU Libraries’ operations.

The above items caught my attention. Unlike some criteria I have seen, FAU does not appear to distinguish scholarship as being independent from job related activities. The creation of curriculum and courses relating to a specialty are considered. Grants and external funding in support of library services, not just the associated publications are considered. Software or technologies created or adapted in support of library services are also considered.

The University at Buffalo included many of the traditional contributions but included "Significant web based publications that can be peer reviewed." In evaluating such works, the document states:

Peer review is characterized by the disinterested, critical review of the candidate’s research or creative activity by respected members of that community.

What caught my attention is how they they do not define peer review. The document does not indicate peer-review as being a prerequisite to publication. One therefore could assume that peer-review includes feedback obtained after publication. What I like here is that one could define blogging as a 'significant web based publication' and comments and track backs becoming evidence of peer review.

Oregon State University also has an interesting way of defining scholarship:

In some fields, refereed journals and monographs are the traditional media for communication and peer validation; in others, exhibitions and performances. In still other fields, emerging technologies are creating, and will continue to create, entirely new media and methods.

This definition seems to allow the library system maximum flexibility in accepting a wide variety of activities as scholarship, including the development of software, application of technology to enhance library services, and yes, even blogging.

ResearchBlogging Mentioned in the Economist

2008-09-25T06:00:00.001-05:00

During the last year I have been serving as a library 'consultant' for the ReasearchBlogging project. The project is in the very capable hands of Dave Munger.

An article mentioning the project appeared in the print edition of the Economist. I was expecting Dave to be mentioned or quoted in the article. He was not. To give someone the benefit of a doubt, Dave could have been left on the cutting room floor. After spending time with Dave in March, he is devoted to making the site work and deserves the credit.

While the Seed Media Group can certainly deserves recognition for development efforts and hosting the site, the concept was brought to them by Dave and is 'owned' by Research Blogging, Inc. a non-profit he set up for the project. In fact, it is really owned by those involved in the project - the hundreds of bloggers and readers to make the site function.

Don't get me wrong. The project has been very fortunate to have the Seed providing development support. The folks there have simply been great to work with! The project may not have gotten off the ground without them. I just feel strongly that Dave deserves the credit for the project, something the article does not articulate.

OK, off the soap box.

A quick primer for those not familiar with the project. Bloggers, often experts in their discipline, frequently find peer-reviewed research they'd like to share. They write thoughtful posts about the research for their blogs. However, these post are often difficult to discover. ResearchBlogging is meant as a discovery tool for those communications and a way to uncover peer-review research.

My thinking, and interest in the project, is that in time the site could be used to help build a quality index of the blogs themselves. Blogs citing blogs; a Blogger Citation Index (BCI), of sorts.

Bloggers interested in the project can register with the site. A simple form is used to create a snippet of code that is placed in their posts. This snipet not only notifies ResearchBlogging about the existence of the post, but also creates a properly formatted citation for their blog. ResearchBlogging then regularly scans registered blogs for posts containing the code snippet. (Made easier if the original article has a DOI!).

Interestingly enough, while I have been involved in the project, library and information science is not yet a default topic. While there are a number of LIS bloggers there is less discussion about peer-review literature when compared to other sciences. Perhaps if more LIS bloggers would participate we can get it added. Until then, just add the topic 'Library and Information Science' under 'other.'

Google (Android) Phone to Debut on Oct. 22

2008-09-23T11:54:00.008-05:00

The first Google (Android) phone will be release by T-Mobile on October 22nd.

The HTC-made device has quadband GSM together withWiFi, GPS, Bluetooth, a 3.2-megapixel fixed-focus camera and a 3.2-inch 320 x 480 flush-fit touchscreen. The phone also has a trackball, a slide-out keyboard and, of course, quick access to Google services.

The phone will 'retail' for for $179 with a two-year contract. The data plan will cost $25 per month on top of the calling service, which is currently at the low end of the price range U.S. wireless carriers.

The device will be sold only in the U.S. cities where the company has rolled out its third-generation wireless data network.

15 Years Since the Release of WinMosaic Beta

2008-09-15T09:46:00.002-05:00

This September 28th marks the 15th anniversary since the first beta release of the NCSA WinMosaic web browser.

Development of Mosaic began in December 1992 by Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina with the original application designed and was originally programmed for Unix's X-Window System. Funding came from the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, a program created by the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, authored by then Senator Al Gore.

The first public beta release (Version 0.6b) occurred on September 28, 1993 with Version 1.0 being released on November 11, 1993.

I remember having to download WinMosaic either from an anonymous FTP site or a Gopher server. I remember having to install (and learning to hate) and configure Trumpet Winsock to make it work. In fact, you can go old school and download it now. (now, make sure to LOADHIGH and include HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE !)

A cottage industry began with companies such as Spry releasing their versions of Mosaic buddled with Internet services.

I got my copy of Mosaic in a Box at the 1995 Spring Internet World conference in San Jose. It came on a 3-1/2 inch floppy which required "a 386PC or higher, 4MB of RAM, a mouse, a modem, and standard phone line, and Windows 3.1 or later. "

Who knew that at the same time a few miles away at Stanford Larry Page and Sergey Brin were disagreeing with each other over everything and would up with this idea.

Library Innovation Requires Regularizing the Irregular

2008-09-08T08:36:00.009-05:00

To move towards a move innovative organization requires experimentation, trial and error, doing new things, and breaking rules. Libraries looking to become more innovative are confronted with reality: it takes 100 crazy ideas to find 10 worth funding experimentally in order to identify 1 project worth pursuing. As it has been said, it takes a lot of acorns to grow an oak tree.

The challenge is that most library organizations are structured and managed to continue current practices rather for than for innovation. Both strategy and resource alignment are focused on supporting short term missions and goals. This holds library organizations captive to a culture that is antagonistic toward innovation. Such a culture kills most attempts at innovation and can eventually drive innovative individuals away. It is not that the individuals within a library do not want to innovate, they talk about it all the time. Simply put, the structure of library organizations and their approach to management may make them unwittingly systematically hostile to innovation.

Gary Hamel notes that that the bottleneck within an organization that ultimately throttles innovation is almost always located at the top. Organizations are trained to look to the top for clues about where it's going. In such organization the vast majority of people have simply ceded responsibility for innovation. When the authority to set strategy and direction is held so narrowly then attempts at innovation inevitably falter. Therefore, new voices and new thinking are essential for a library to create a culture of innovation.

In his book The Future of Management, Hamel discusses new management principles which can help transform a library into a more innovative culture, including:

variety, diversity, experimentation, depoliticizing / depolarization of decision making
resource allocation flexibility
enabling activism through democracy (devolution of accountability, distributed leadership, unalienable >
engagement and mobilization through a common cause
increasing the odds and successful contribution of serendipity

Other interesting quotes from Hamel:

“To a large extent, managers play the role of parents, school principles, crossing guards and hall monitors. They employ control from without because employees have been deprived of the ability to exercise control from within. Adolescents outgrow most of these constraining influences; employees often aren’t given that chance. The result: disaffection. Adults enjoy being treated like 13-year olds even less than 13-year olds.”

“One can fairly describe the development of modern management as an unending quest to regularize the irregular, starting with errant and disorderly employees. Increasingly, though, we live in an irregular world, where irregular people take advantage of irregular events and use irregular means to produce irregular products that yield irregular profits.”

“Try to imagine what a democracy of ideas would look like. Employees would feel free to share their thoughts and opinions, however politically charged they might be. No single gatekeeper would be allowed to quash an idea or set the boundaries on its
dissemination. New ideas would be given the chance to garner support before being voted up or down by senior execs. The internal debate about strategy, direction and policy would be open, vigorous, and uncensored. Maybe this sounds hopelessly romantic, but such a thoughtocracy already exists—not in any big company, but on the web.”

"When you step on a treadmill and start to jog, your heart automatically increases the blood supply to your muscles. When you stand up in front of an audience to speak, your adrenal gland spontaneously pumps out a hormone that accelerates your heart rate and heightens your faculties. And when you glance at someone who is physically attractive to you, your pupils dilate reflexively, drinking in the agreeable visage. Automatic. Spontaneous. Reflexive. These aren’t the words we typically use to describe deep change in large organizations. And therein lies the challenge: to make deep change more of an autonomic process—to build organizations that are capable of continuous self-renewal in the absence of a crisis."

Technology Use During Gustav

2008-09-03T13:18:00.007-05:00

I have a new Labor Day weekend tradition; hurricane watching. Much like tornadoes hitting trailer parks, having a major hurricane over the holiday weekend seems to be something we can count on. Fortunately, Gustav was not has bad as it could have been.

Over the weekend I looked for ways in which technology was being used to manage and communicate during the storm.

The Department of Homeland Security created several Federal Hurricane Response Widgets.
NOAA also created several NOAAWatch Web Widgets.

General Motors saw a 30 percent increase in calls to its OnStar service. In addition to providing computerized maps and information on hotel vacancies, OnStar offered information on locations of Red Cross shelters. Many subscribers made use of a 30 minute free airtime GM offered to drivers to make calls to family and friends. It has been reported that at one point they were receiving 3000 calls an hour.

Globel Relief Technologies provided 29 PDA/GPS/Sat Phones to Red Cross volunteers. The PDAs recorded the status of electricity, food supplies and shelter, and even took pictures. The data and visual material was uploaded to the Red Cross operations center so agency officials could direct resources to where they were need most. Even FEMA doesn't use this technology.

Will the FM Radio Band Be Expanded?

2008-08-26T10:22:00.005-05:00

I'm surprised I didn't come across this one earlier.

In March, the FCC proposed turning over the bandwidth currently occupied by analog channels 5 and 6 over to the FM band (76-88 MHz). If approved, this could open opportunities for additional channels when the digital television transition is complete next February. The spectrum currently reserved for channels 5 and 6 is immediately adjacent to the existing FM broadcast dial and could be easily be re-appropriated to expand the FM dial to accommodate up to 60 new stations.

This will be an interesting change. I know I am used to seeking out local college and Public Radio stations down in the lower FM band. The question I have is if the FCC will be simply expanding the low power band to accomondate new community stations. This may be the case since the idea was embedded deep within a proposal to promote diversity ownership.

Class of 2012 Beloit College Mindset List

2008-08-22T13:53:00.004-05:00

The class of 2012 Beloit College Mindset list is out.

A few that stood out that could have impact on how we deliver library services:

The class of 2012 has grown up in an era where computers and rapid communication are the norm,
colleges no longer trumpet the fact that residence halls are “wired” and equipped with the latest hardware.
Hardly recognize the availability of telephones in their rooms since they have seldom utilized landlines during their adolescence.
Will continue to use their cell phones and communicate via texting.
Roommates, few of whom have ever shared a bedroom, have already checked out each other on Facebook where they have shared their most personal thoughts with the whole world.
GPS satellite navigation systems have always been available.
WWW has never stood for World Wide Wrestling.
They may have been given a Nintendo Game Boy to play with in the crib.
Windows 3.0 operating system made IBM PCs user-friendly the year they were born.
As a precursor to “whatever,” they have recognized that some people “just don’t get it.”

Can the Elliott Wave Predict Library Usage Patterns?

2008-08-11T03:30:00.004-05:00

In the 1930's, Ralph Nelson Elliott, a corporate accountant, studied financial market price movements. He observed that certain patterns repeated themselves and what may appear to be random and unrelated actually create a recognizable pattern. Elliott called his discovery "The Elliott Wave Principle."

While the theory is applied mostly to financial and commodity markets, the Elliott Wave addresses much more: it attempts to find patterns that underlie collective society. It can been viewed as a measure of mass human activity that can be applied to socio patterns as well (see: The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics) These patterns underly the forces that drives the trends in human affairs from politics to popular culture.

Robert Prechter, in his book "At the Crest of the Tidal Wave," argues that using the Elliott wave principle that we are at the crest of a tidal wave of change in the public mood that will stall or reverse a 200 year cycle of rising Western European prosperity. Prechter predicts " the darkening of the social mood produces a falling stock market and ultimately, social upheaval." Yep, Wave theorists paint a extremely depressing picture of the future.

I am still trying to get a grasp of the concept, but essentially, the idea is that when quantified and graphed human activity creates a common and predictable 'wave' pattern. The trend line moves up or down the graph with the primary trend impulsively. These impulsive (dramatic) moves come in stair-step fashion, five waves at a time. Waves 1, 3, and 5 progress and waves 2 and 4 regress (or correct).

The total move in the direction of the primary trend progresses because the sum of waves 1, 3, and 5 exceeds the sum of waves 2 and 4. Waves 1, 3, and 5 move in the direction of the primary trend, while waves 2 and 4 can either move in the opposite direction or sideways.

The pattern is repeated on the decline as well as the incline. I believe that Wave and stock market watchers see the Great Depression as wave (4); the 2000 market as wave (5); we are heading down to corrective wave (A) - where Wave followers predict the Dow will drop to 1000. (You are saying by now "Thanks, Eric, for brightening my day!)

Assuming that there is something to the principle, I wonder if one looks at circulation, gate count, interlibrary loan, reference transactions if the Elliott Wave will show itself. I will try to grab some stats in the upcoming month and report back if the Wave pattern emerges, or not.

Rethinking Scholarship in Academic Librarianship

2008-08-07T10:13:00.016-05:00

I was asked in a comment by Karen to to my Knol post if I had a promotion and tenure model in mind which took into account emerging scholarship methods. I didn't at the time. Since then, I have been doing some thinking, reading, and talking with colleagues.

The nature of librarianship and scholarly communication has changed drastically over the past decade while the definition of scholarship for academic librarians is stuck in time. Scholarship in libraries with tenure track librarians is still universally equated with research and publication in traditional peer-reviewed journal articles and monographs. In fact, there are disincentives to exploring alternative forms of scholarship since faculty are reluctant to pursue them since such activities have historically not been valued positively, or not weighed equally, during faculty evaluations.

The impact of the lack of exploration of alternative methods by faculty librarians may be more profound than one would imagine; a growing percentage of the output of our scholarly endeavors may no longer accurately reflect the changing nature and practices of our profession.

One has to really give the Modern Language Association (the other, other MLA) and their task force a great deal of credit for communicating how they feel scholarship should be evaluated and promoted by rethinking tenure - and much more. The inspiration for their approach was Ernest Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the Professorate. Boyer's text also inspired Oregon State University (the other, other OSU) to also rethink scholarship and to change their guidelines.

Both MLA and OSU are broadening the view of scholarship beyond 'research." They are both articulating, advocating, and providing mechanisms for recognition of scholarship that is produced but not presented in traditional journal articles or monographs. The basic tenants of scholarship still exist in both their approaches by emphasizing the importance of validity, communicating to broader audiences, and ensuring that scholarship outcomes will be accessible and useful to others.

To help ensure that our scholarship remains relevant and in sync with changes to the profession, a revised definition of what constitutes academic library scholarship is needed. While not exactly a model, the following is a statement on the role of scholarship that is inspired by the MLA, and largely borrowed from it and the Oregon document (and acknowledged here as such):

The purpose of scholarship is to create something that did not exist before that is validated and communicated to others: a new understanding, new knowledge, new insights, new technologies and applications of knowledge that contribute to librarianship. Library faculty are expected to engage in scholarship, and each is also expected to perform responsibilities assigned their position. These assigned responsibilities typically include specific teaching, research, or administrative assignments.

Scholarship and creative activity derive from many activities , including but not limited to: research contributing to a body of knowledge; development of new technologies, materials, methods, or educational approaches; integration of knowledge or technology leading to new interpretations or applications; creation and interpretation in the arts, including the performing arts; and work on steering committees, funding agency panels and editorships where the outcome is a fundamental change in the field’s direction.
The kinds of scholarship for faculty across the range of positions at the library will vary. In some areas of librarianship, refereed journals and monographs are the traditional media for communication and peer validation; in others, presentations and exhibitions. In still other areas, emerging technologies are creating, and will continue to create, entirely new media and methods. Scholarship and creative activity its diverse forms must be based on a high level of professional expertise; must give evidence of originality; must be documented and validated as through peer review or critique; and must be communicated in appropriate ways so as to have impact on or significance beyond the library, University, or the discipline itself.
Peer validation and communication can occur in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, peer-refereed publications. In cases where validation and communication are not obvious, faculty must document how it was accomplished.

In certain positions, seeking competitive grants and contracts is an essential responsibility, and success in this endeavor—particularly when the grants are highly competitive or peer-reviewed— is a evidence of achievement in scholarship.
In consideration for promotion and tenure, scholarship and creative activity are not merely to be enumerated but are to be carefully, objectively, and rigorously evaluated by professional peers, including ones external to the University.

Will Librarians Embrace Knol? Chances are....

2008-08-04T11:50:00.002-05:00

...we will not. At least initially.

To play with Knol, I created my first document, a repurposing of my five part SOA blog series from last year. I could have created one very long blog post but decided to break it into more digestible chunks. The reformatted Knol version pulled it all together and it seems to works as a longer document. I will likely be questioned by faculty colleagues wondering why I didn't publish publish it in a traditional peer reviewed journal. This is part of the point of this post.

I spent some time reading Richard Akerman's posts about Google's Knol. Much of the criticism he provides, such as search and discovery, are well founded. I do wonder if we have grown to expect only great things from Google and are increasingly disappointed / critical when they do not immediately deliver. (can you say Gphone?) All the current shortcomings of the Knol aside, two of Richard's comments interested me:

"...a total lack of understanding of the current state of scholarly blogging..."

"If you want to make Knol a system for presenting authoritative information, you might want to look at how scholars do it in modern web-enabled scientific articles"

Google is not the only group that may not understand the current state. We only have to look in the mirror (well, not any of you. You ARE here reading this).

I have posted my perspective on the value of blogging as scholarly communication. I am a tenure track faculty librarian and the incoming Chair of our Promotion and Tenure Committee. When talking with our faculty about "scholarly blogging" it still amazes me that is how many librarians simply do not see how blogging is shaping our professional communications. I'll speculate that a majority of topics presented at conferences and eventually land up in print literature started with a half-baked idea on a blog. Certainly, blogs are the major source of topics at the various library BarCamps.

Librarians think of themselves as being on top of emerging technologies and using them to provide our customers with the best services possible. Yet, the communications methods that we use to share our ideas, our knowledge, are still grounded in the middle ages. A growing amount of content making its way into our traditional literature is so 'old' that it is no longer interesting. This may be the single reason why our traditional published literature has become so dreary.

I am sure many of our professors could wax poetically about why Knol and blogging do not merit consideration as scholarly communications. They will talk about the lack of pre-publication peer-review and authority. Chances are they would be evaluating Knol without ever using it. Their perspectives would be no different than the critic that trashes a movie before seeing it. A major breakthrough moment would be if I would get the response "I read over the blog posts about Knol the other day..."

So, while Knol has issues, it is the potential of this type of publishing I feel can help to revitalize the state of our professional communication. Tools such as blogs and Knol can let us toss out those half-baked ideas. The reviews and comments enables the author to build out newer/better/more thought out versions of the content. This is in contrast to a blog post which is generally stuck in time - much like the majority of our professional communications.

Taking QR Codes to the Streets

2008-07-31T12:13:00.005-05:00

At the Medical Library Association Conference this year I included QR Codes as a Tech Trend. The only place QR Codes are actually useful is still in Japan, where they are becoming ubiquitous. In the States, online guides Citysearch and Antenna Audio piloted QR Codes, in San Francisco back in the Spring. The are readers available for just about every mobile platform, including iPhone.

The latest product on the market are QR Code patches, which point to a proxy server which then redirects a phone browser to the URL encoded in the code. So, when someone takes a photo of your jacket, backpack, or wherever the patch is attached they can go to your online presence.

It also means that when someone takes a photo of you and posts it to Flickr, then someone can take a photo of that photo and be linked to the URL .

Cincinnati Motorized Logo LIVES!

2008-07-29T14:58:00.002-05:00

Back in 1927 a motorized sign commonly known as "YouBert" was installed above the Young & Bertke air systems building along I-75 north of downtown. After years of walking in place, YouBert has been motion less since 2005, after the sign's mechanism failed. Well, the logo is back at walking with a new motor and a fresh coat of paint.

Mobile Optimized Library Web Sites

2008-07-21T12:57:00.006-05:00

An article in today's NetworkWorld highlights the beta launch of Opera Mobile 9.5, a native Web browser for higher end 'smart' phones. Opera Dragonfly is Opera’s open source cross-platform developer tool. The beta browser is for Windows but Symbian support is in the works and Java support so it can run on the Samsumg SPH-M800 (a.k.a Instinct) is also rumored to be in the works.

Other entrants into the mobile browser space include Mobile Firefox and Skyfire, expected sometime this year. All are in an effort to catch up with the Safari/iPhone platform. The evolution of mobile device browsers has benefited from a marked increase in processor power and the increased speed and coverage of wireless network infrastructures. The browser development has also been accelerated by the increased number of web sites being optimized for the mobile users.

Libraries have been talking about optimizing their web sites for mobile devices for years, but mobile browsers have lagged in their ability to display content and have had limited functionality. In my hunt on how libraries are taking advantage of this fast-paced development today, I came across Megan Fox's Libraries on the Go: Handheld and Mobile Access to Information. The site includes many of her presentations, but also links to industry information. She also lists several libraries with mobile optimized sites, including:

American University Libraries
Ball State University Library
Boston University Medical Center Mobile Library
Cal Poly Pomona University Library
Hanover College, Duggan Library
Harvard College Library
University of Illinois Library
New York University Libraries
University of Richmond Library
St. John’s University, College of St. Benedict
University of Virgina Library

Using IDEAS to Create an Innovative Library

2008-07-14T12:45:00.000-05:00

I have been reading The Game Changer by A.G. Lafley and Ram Charan. The book provides a different way of thinking about management processes to make innovation a central driver of a business. It draws upon the authors experience at Proctor and Gamble. There, they made building an innovative culture a fundamental part of the organizational strategy by using the concept of IDEAS.

Inclusive - the benefits of diverse thinking and ideas

Decisive - eliminating organizational debate and overanalysis to enable faster innovation development

External - being in touch with customers

Agile - able to react quickly to changing customer and market conditions and taking calculated risks

Simple - ongoing streamlining and simplification of structures and processes.

I think that libraries do the inclusive and external parts very well. However, we have a lot of work to on being decisive, agile, and simple.

In fact, we tend to have very specific processes and procedures (committees; task forces) to encourage debate and overanalysis (all areas must be represented) which prevents us from being agile (12-18 month development cycle).

The book also reinforces two other characteristics of innovation that I have learned. First, innovation is not about the end product. It is not about the widget produced. Instead, innovation is all about the new interpersonal connections and the intersection of ideas which emerge.

Second, leadership plays a very important role. Leadership does not mean the administrative organization. Instead, it is about building a pipeline of leaders which allow a culture of innovation to grow and be sustained. These leaders can exist at any level of an organization. They must be given opportunities to lead and learn.

To the Moon on 72Kb

2008-07-08T17:44:00.010-05:00

As a child of the 60's, I continue to be interested in space. Specifically, the technology of space. This week, the Science Channel is running a series this week called Moon Machines during their Space Week 2008.

The episode I just watch is called "Navigation."It details the creation of the Apollo command module guidance computer (AGC) by the MIT Instrumentation Lab.

Apollo Guidance Computer Specifications:
Instruction Set: Approximately 20 instructions;
100 noun-verb pairs, data up to triple-precision
Word Length: 16 bits (14 bits + sign + parity)
Memory: ROM (rope core) 36K words; RAM (core) 2K words
Disk: None
Performance: approx. Add time - 20us
Basic machine cycle: 2.048 MHz
Technology: RTL bipolar logic (flat pack)
Size: 24" x 12.5" x 6" (HWD)
Weight: 70 lbs;
Number produced: 75
Cost: Unknown.
Power consumption: Operating: 70W @ 28VDC; Standby 15.0 watts

There were a few bits of information I thought were interesting:

At the time they were building the AGC the 'integrated chip' was just being developed. It's a frequently cited that the space program and perhaps the AGC more than any other single part of this program that drove IC development, an observation Eldon Hall makes in his book Journey to the Moon. At one point NASA was consuming 60% of all chips being manufactured. They would weight them, then immerse them in a bath of freon. If they weighed even a few micrograms greater they would toss the entire batch away since there had to be some flaw which absorbed some of the freon.

It is common to hear that many of our devices are more powerful than the Apollo guidance computer, but I never heard what the total was until now - 72kb. A $100 MP3 player has 50,000 times more storage space then the computer that got Apollo to the Moon. I think back to the Commodore 64 I had and even it was pretty close to the processing AGC power (I wonder if the MIT guys "peeked and poked")

The programs were literally hardwired and "weaved" together using rope memory.

The computer's other error codes included error 00404, which was shorthand for "IMU orientation unknown." This has been compared to the HTTP 404 "browser navigation" error code, although the later was not based on it.

(If one is really into this stuff feel free to download the GNU Virtual AGC or build a real one in your basement. The original schematics are available.)

8 Drugs Doctors Would Never Take

2008-07-01T10:43:00.001-05:00

As a health sciences librarian for almost 20 years, I have many issues with the coverage of medical topics in such popular literature. The latest to get me going is a Men's Health article entitled 8 Drugs Doctors Would Never Take.

Sadly, this article is filled with overgeneralized statements such as "Unfortunately, it seems some doctors rarely pull the PDR off the shelf. Or if they do crack it open, they don't stay versed on emerging research that may suddenly make a once-trusted treatment one to avoid"

Well, for one, I would question how up to date an MD was if they were still using a 'print' PDR. Second, the reader is supposed to trust a popular magazine article that relies upon a single source article and/or the comment of a single health professional to supports the author's argument for placing a drug on the list.

The author, Morgan Lord, doesn't even appear on the Men's Health list of "experts," which include a bartender and "smart New Yorker, who isn't afraid to tell guys what women really want." He doesn't have an MD or even a PhD after his name. Just try to find more information on his credentials as a medical writer. He also writes for Women's Health magazine and is listed simply as an Assistant Editor on this Rodale Internation publication.

I have no issue with Mr. Lord. He needs to support his family.

My major concern is that this content also is published on other site sites including MSNBC and MSN. This provides a false sense of credibility. DrV's comments really sums things up:

So, while I understand that Mr. Lord has as his job to report information that 'scares' people, I believe that he is remiss in not reporting why a person's Doctor may find important uses in these drugs or may even disagree with studies that are out there. If you've ever seen a patient die without a long term medicine to control their asthma, or you've seen someone whose life has been changed with the addition of a 'questionable' drug, then you will understand that blanket statements that a drug wouldn't be taken by your doctor may be dead wrong. Personally, I'd take this drug (or similar) if I had asthma, and I have family members on it as well. Please, Mr. Lord, do not make my job more difficult; patient compliance is hard enough already as it is.

Michael Schrage at ALA Friday 6/27 at 1:30p

2008-06-26T08:46:00.001-05:00

If you are at ALA, make sure you attend the OCLC Symposium: The Mashed-Up Library at 1:30 on Friday 6/27 that includes a great keynote speaker and panel that will discuss developing new library services by mixing data and functionality from several sources.

The keynote speaker with Michael Schrage, author of Serious Play and Shared Minds—The New Technologies of Collaboration and columnist for CIO and MIT’s Technology Review.

The panel includes Susan Gibbons, Associate Dean, Public Services & Collection Development, University of Rochester (NY) River Campus Libraries David Lee King, Digital Branch & Services Manager, Topeka & Shawnee County (KS) Public Library, and Mary Beth Sancomb-Moran, Librarian, University of Minnesota, Rochester.

Any librarian that is concerned about how their organization can remain relevant in the time of technological change and how we can establish services where our customers are should attend.

Will the Next Generation of Library Systems be Customer Generated?

2008-06-23T07:52:00.005-05:00

I have been lurking in on an OhioLink task force discussing "next generation" discovery layers. One of the latest postings to the group was by Peter Murray , who highlighted a report from the Next Generation Summit Search Interface Working Group of the Orbis/Cascade Alliance.

The report supports several concepts I have been pushing for a couple years now, including the idea of consortia to support library systems development. However, the more important concept is included in the report’s recommendations:

Regardless of who provides the Alliance’s next generation OPAC product, one of the deliverables that must be available as part of any solution is API or web services access to the catalog. Access at this level is important for two reasons:

... All major ILS vendors but III provide their customers a web services or HTTP REST API access to their systems, allowing for continued development around the catalog. Lacking such access, the Summit catalog will continue to be marginalized within the consortium’s academic campuses as tools and services are developed that take advantage of web service friendly applications.

... The Alliance should strive to create a resource that encourages users, libraries, and campuses to develop services around the Summit catalog. The library community has recognized that our patrons want social tools, which we tend to identify as tagging, commenting, etc. However, Web 2.0 applications like Flickr are popular because of the API access that they provide to their users as well. This access has enabled other web services, individuals, and organizations to develop different methods for exporting and utilizing the images placed within the Flickr photo archive. The Alliance should strive to make the Summit catalog open in this way, so that users and members alike are free to enhance Summit to meet individual, campus, or consortial needs.

Aha. Without using the geek terminology what they are describing is actually Service Oriented Architecture. However, what I am really excited to read is the desire on the part of the Alliance to break library culture and control over bibliographic information and to let the customers play with it. The number of applications that make use of the Google Maps shows how creative customers can be in seeing new connections between information sources.

I could see a customer building a new system in which leverages OPAC data in a weekend which could take a library organization a year to work through. Libraries should be building and licencing systems which exposes our content and data. Let the customers can play with it. Let them mash it up. Let them create systems that fit their immediate needs.

The challenge is that libraries do build systems and services with our (librarian) needs in mind. Our need for control. Our need for perfection. Our need for process. A library information system (or service) that uses a development process that does not meet our internal cultural needs is almost immediately classified as being a failure. We then focus way too much energy doing a post mortem on what went wrong in the development process in an effort to "do it right the next time."

It's no wonder that library systems of tomorrow are really just library systems of yesterday.

It seems to me that as a profession we are stuck in a bad relationship with our systems and vendors. We just can't figure out a way to get out of it. Are we happy that III will not give us APIs? Are we so insecure with our relationship with them that we are content to take what they give us? Do we feel we are that powerless?

The approach that the Alliance has outlined in their report is a extremely positive sign that some finally have had enough and are willing to make the hard decisions required for information system independence.

Photo: "REST eye for the SOA GUY" by psd. Creative Commons.

Does the Medici Effect Work for Libraries?

2008-06-17T06:55:00.003-05:00

The Medicis were a banking family in Florence that funded sculptors, scientists, poets, painters, and architects among others. Individuals from many disciplines converged upon the city of Florence where they learned from one another while breaking down barriers between disciplines. They forged a world based on new ideas and created what we know as as the Renaissance.

In his book The Medici Effect, author Frans Johansson discusses how he sees the drivers of innovation as being diversity and the intersection of disciplines.

"The key difference between a field and an intersection of fields lies in how concepts within them are combined... If you operate within a field, you primarily are able to combine concepts within that particular field, generating ideas that evolve along a particular direction -- what I call directional ideas. When you step into the Intersection, you can combine concepts between multiple fields, generating ideas that leap in new directions -- what I call intersectional ideas."

Most individuals are predisposed to using directional thinking when faced with a problem or challenge. Solutions based on the intersection of ideas requires breaking down the barriers between traditional methods, fields, and disciplines. Intersectional ideas are important because they have the potential to create what Clayton Christensen calls disruptive innovations.

We recently interviewed candidates for our open Library Director (technically an AVP) position. I asked about how one goes about changing the culture of a library from one being focused on planning and makings sure everything we do is right the first time to a culture in which half-baked ideas and failure are permissible.

One candidate responded that the culture needs to be changed from the inside out. When asked for an example, they describe a situation where they intentionally hired a person with a technical services background to work in the circulation department. Their thinking was that the staff member would bring to the circulation department a perceptive based on the technical services discipline. The result was that new ideas and processes developed. The candidate intentionally created a new intersection, which resulted in a mini-Medici Effect, if you will.

Libraries looking to become more innovative can do so by intentionally creating an environment/organization in the Medici Effect can occur. This can be accomplished very simply by strategic reassignment of staff in key areas as the candidate did.

On a much larger scale, a library can reorganize itself so that existing work/social networks are broken up, an approach that Johansson also suggests. Breaking networks takes a deliberate effort and is tricky because networks are made up of relationships between people, and relationships are cultivated over time. Social networks are built upon relationships that often go beyond work and becomes the foundation for trust. Breaking these social networks would mean disrupting the social capital that has been built within parts of the organization.

Still, one can build a strong argument that innovation is more likely to occur when an organization moves from one that aspires to enhance existing social networks to one that breaks them, then rebuilds them over again.

Photo "Medici statute" by Vic15 is available though the Creative Commons license

Three Perspectives on Innovation

2008-06-10T18:25:00.003-05:00

I have been given a great opportunity to lead an innovation task force for Ohio State University Libraries. The TF is one of several the resulted from a day long planning session held back in April. The goal of each of the TF is to help the library create a five year plan. I am planing to create a series of posts based on the TF activities.

The following are several perspectives on innovation the TF has uncovered:

Michael Schrage:

Innovation is more social than personal. It is a byproduct of how well or poorly one plays with others. Behavior - not knowledge, not insight - drives innovation.
You can't be a serious innovator unless you are willing and able to play

Clayton Christensen:

You have to be careful which customers you listen to, and then you need to watch what they do, not listen to what they say."
The problem is when you say "listen to your customers," your customers are only going to lead you in a direction that they want to go in. Generally, that will never lead you to disruptive growth. You've got to find that new set of customers, and listen to them and follow them. That's the trick.

Andrew H. Van De Ven:

People and organizations are largely designed to focus on, harvest, and protect existing practices than pay attention to developing new ideas. The more successful an organization the more difficult this is. (Christensen echoes this theory)
While the innovation of conception process many be an individual activity, innovation is a collective achievement of pushing and riding those ideas.
The process of transforming innovation into practice involves so many individuals that those involved may lose sight of the big picture.
Innovations transform the structure and practices of an organization. The problem is creating an infrastructure conducive to innovation.

MLA 2008: Croquet, not Second Life, is the Technology Trend

2008-05-21T08:38:00.010-05:00

The first web search tool that I ever used was called WebCrawler. The service was also the hot topic at almost every conference I attended for two years. Soon, Lycos and the other search tools began to appear and the search landscape changed. It took about five years and several iterations of search tools before Google appeared on the horizon.

WebCrawler is now a footnote in web search tool history, although the current developers would likely argue my assessment.

At the MLA 2008 Tech Trends panel an audience member wondered why we didn't discuss Second Life.

In effect, SL is the WebCrawler for virtual environments. Other platforms will soon be appearing which will change the virtual world landscape. Wallace McLendon alluded to this when he mentioned the Croquet project in response to the question. SL was first to market and will likely become a footnote in virtual environment history.

Croquet is very interesting since it is an open source virtual environment platform which allows an organization to create a custom virtual environment and designed it to best meet the needs of its customers. Here is Marshall Breeding on Croquet:

""It's exciting to get an early glimpse of an emerging technology from another branch of the evolutionary tree. That's how I would characterize the Open Croquet Project, the most innovative-and most difficult to describe-technology I've seen all year."

I certainly encourage libraries/librarians to learn from playing around in the SL sandbox. Experiment. Understanding WebCrawler helped librarians understand the potential of Google. Understanding SL will help librarians understand other virtual environment platforms. However, open source efforts like Croquet are the real technology trend.

It is highly likely that Croquet will be discussed at a future panel once the platform matures and more institutions begin creating educational/instructional modules/worlds with it.

For a tour of Croquet: