A few weeks ago I wrote about my mission to inspire a generation of imaginarians and information activists.  Many have told me that they like the term imaginarian.  Others have asked what it means.  So, like a good doctoral student, I thought I would define my terms.

An imaginarian is built on the concept of imagineer from the Disney Corporation.  The term imagineer is the blending of imagination and engineering.  So I define the term imaginarian as the blending of imagination and librarianship.  Imagineers are tasked with designing and building Disney’s parks, resorts, etc…

Imaginarians are tasked with designing and building the human imagination.  We focus on the creative and learning processes that take place in the human brain and soul.  We help people construct realities and worlds that meet their desires.  Imaginarians help people find their voice, identity and creative-self.  We foster an environment in which these can soar.

Libraries are the only place anyone can go to become anything they want.  Whether this is manifest only in their mind or becomes a reality in the physical world, the library can truly take people anywhere they want to go.  And imaginarians help people get “there”.

Librarians Without Borders Back on the Ground in Guatemala: Asturias Library Project

Thirteen Librarians Without Borders (LWB) volunteers from Canada and the United States are working on the ground at the Miguel Angel Asturias Academy in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala from May 3-13, 2012. LWB is collaborating with the Academy on the development of its emerging library which supports an innovative curriculum inspired by the philosophy of Paulo Freire.

LWB has partnered with the Asturias Academy since 2009 to support the Academy’s vision of building a sustainable community library in the school. This vision began to be realized in January 2011 with the help of LWB when the Library finally opened its door. But there remains a great deal to be done: this year LWB continues to work with the Academy to help cultivate the reading culture and increase book use and literacy within the school and community. Read about some of their projects.

For the duration of the trip (May 3-13), you can support LWB’s work by purchasing an eBook app from Auryn Inc, a digital publisher who creates award-winning interactive children’s stories for mobile devices. Auryn is donating $1 of each app sold to support the work of LWB.

Auryn collaborates with well-known authors, illustrators and publishers to turn their stories into educational, engaging and entertaining experiences. They have received significant recognition for their work in the emerging mobile app book space, which includes Teddy’s Day,Van Gogh and the Sunflowers, The Little Mermaid, Bunny Fun: Head Shoulder’s Knees and Toes by Rosemary Wells, and more. Click on these links to reach the iTunes store.

Visit the LWB project blog to follow the group’s experiences during their time in Guatemala.

In essence a library would purchase an eBook one time but would pay the publisher for each “downloaded” rental.  The payment would be tiered.  Libraries would maintain ownership over the title.  They would not have restrictions other than self-imposed restrictions (I would imagine that libraries would impose checkout limits or they could see a very large and unexpected monthly payout).  Libraries also don’t pay up front for a bunch of books that people don’t want to read.  Publishers will make a killing and capture a revenue stream hereto for they have been unable to capture.

My estimates are that this organization will need about $1,500,000 to start up.  It would be self-sufficient fairly quickly.  This model would also work for a for-profit company, but I think the publishers would be more likely to work with a nonprofit.  I am happy to support anyone who is willing to take up the charge.  Much of the sales forecasting that you would need for a business plan are here, and I’m happy to share my Excel files if needed.

A small/midsize library serving around 15,000 patrons could expect to pay around $12,500 a year.  They would have about 3,000 titles in the collection year one and it would increase by around 2,000 titles per year.  Titles that are more than 16 years old would have no fee to the publisher, and just a nominal fee to Adobe and the organization.  The best part is that libraries can incorporate the holdings into whatever system they like.  I am still a major proponent of a library system that resembles iTunes to make it easiest on those who use the library.

It’s difficult to explain in its entirety here, so I will just post a bunch of my projections:

*Postscript

I believe that publishers add a needed service in the publishing paradigm, however this model would work equally well if someone were crazy enough to buck the system completely and work directly with the authors.

As you know, I am trying to push the culture of the library in new directions.  I am very excited to introduce two new shifts:

1.  I would like us to shift some of our time.  Google and 3M have a long and successful policy of giving staff time each week to work on technology projects that excite and interest them.  To that end, please begin to take 2 hours per week (5% of your time) to explore and work on ideas of your own making.  If you are interested in reading more please see http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1998/01/9858 or http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/jobs/21pre.html.  This is time for you to work on and explore anything you want as long as it is somehow library related.  It is best if the time is spent on a sustained project.  You can and should feel free to work either on individual projects or collaborate with others.  The purpose is to move us into a culture that is okay with experimenting with new ideas and risking failure.  Really the sky is the limit.
2. In order to better understand how our spaces influence and affect our students, I would like each one of us to spend some time each month working where the students work.  This could mean checking work email on the students’ computers, reading professional literature on the lounge furniture, or working on a project at a table.  The library also has two laptops which you can use to engage in work activities and see how wifi impacts our students.  Please respect peak times for our students and avoid taking computers and space away when we are at or near capacity.

Both of these are voluntary but strongly encouraged.  They are intentionally designed to be flexible but also remain vague.  Please feel free to ask me to clarify anything.

Collaboration is the way we work now. In a 2008 BusinessWeek study of white-collar professionals, 82% reported they needed to partner with others throughout the day to get their work done. That means people don’t just work together in meeting and conference rooms anymore. Collaboration now occurs all the time at personal desks and in hallways, or virtually via internet or smart phones, and it’s often spontaneous and informal, rather than planned in advance.

Unfortunately our legacy work environments — dominated by offices or cubes — rarely match this new reality. To effectively do so, they need to adequately accommodate three types of work: “I work,” which requires expertise, concentration and focus; “You & I work,” which involves relatively simple collaboration among two people; and “We work,” which embodies the highest level of content and context complexity, from multi-disciplinary expertise to multi-location and multi-technology platforms.

The post also provides two pieces of workplace research from Steelcase and the Gensler Design Group.  The research shows vast improvements in workplace productivity if collaborative spaces are provided for staff.  Libraries have a long history of separating tasks into departments and keeping those departments apart from each other (often through wide spatial separation).  I believe this leads to a decrease in library innovation and productivity.  I have seen library’s create powerful spaces for patrons, but I have yet to see a library create appropriate spaces for 21st century librarians.

As the Gensler report states, workplaces in the 1980s were designed around processes (many libraries are still like this); the 1990s were designed around processes + technology (spaces focused more on the technology tools) but today’s space requires processes + technology + people.  We need to move our workplace spaces to today’s requirements.  Does your metadata specialist need to be physically removed from your children’s librarian?  Does this type of space layout lead to echo chambers in your own organization?  Are you willing to try something different just to see what possibilities exist?

Event Details

Who’s invited?

Anyone who cares about libraries, whether you work in one or not, is welcome to attend, but be ready to jump in and help shape the discussions that take place at the Unconference! In addition to friends of libraries from any walk of life, we hope to see many types of staff from lots of different libraries.

When is it?

Thursday, May 31, 2012
9:00am-3:30pm

Where is it?

RAILS Wheeling Building (former NSLS)
200 W. Dundee Road
Wheeling, IL 60090
847-459-1300
Map and directions

How do I register?

Space is limited so visit our EventBrite page to register now. The cost is $20/person, which includes lunch, snacks, and overhead expenses.

Who else is coming?

Although much of the Unconference will rely on its participants to shape and lead the discussions that take place, we’ll have some guest speakers to offer inspiration and know-how.

The Apple Way for Libraries (a Manifesto?)

I have really begun digging deep into the Apple model and philosophy.  It is a very interesting and different approach to doing business and delivering content, information, and technology.  I think there is a lot for libraries to learn from the Apple way, so I will proceed to write a ramble of various approaches that I feel libraries need to adopt.  This is spurred on, in part, by the recent Penguin/Overdrive news.

Integrated Products

Apple’s number one philosophy is an integrated, seamless, end-to-end product.  Do we really wonder why the general population begins an information search at a library website only 1% of the time.  The explanation is easy, how often do they find what they seek on the site?  More times than not, they get bounced to another site.  In any given search, a library member may start at yourlibrary.org then head over to yourlibrary.overdrive.com or yourlibrary.sirsidynix.com then onto yourlibrary.ebsco.com, yourlibrary.refworks.com, yourlibrary.gale.com, yourlibrary.freegal.com, etc…  How many of these user experiences do you control?  How much do you control the content?

Library’s need to regain control.  Libraries need to have end-to-end products.   We need to create a positive user experience, but without the ability to make necessary changes to a database, catalog, or other information resource, we simply cannot make the necessary changes.  Moreover, not only do we not have control, but we are really starting to see that others’ have control over us.  They control the content that we offer, and how it is delivered.  Is this a sustainable practice for libraries?

Our libraries need to own, control and integrate the catalog, eContent delivery, databases, citation creation sites, etc…  They need to carry our branding.  They need to meet the needs of our users.  This is the way it used to be for us.  The first catalogs were created in house, controlled onsite, and designed for our users.

If we are responsible for the entire user experience, then we have to own and control the entire product pipeline.  We need to have vertical integration.  Imagine what Pepsi would do if the water they purchased was substandard.  Yet our suppliers are substandard.  We are beholden to our vendors.  And in the words of Steve Jobs, what they delivery is “shit”.

Simplicity

Another Apple hallmark is simplicity.  Our systems, created and controlled by others, are way too complex.  Honestly ask yourself how many times you use Amazon a day because it is easier to use.  Seriously, think about that for a second.  Even you prefer Amazon.  Have you looked at Apple’s website?  Go take a peak.  There are seven tabs at the top.  The rest of the front page is dynamic (albeit marketing-related) content.  Most of that content is a single piece of content.  Basically their page is seven small tabs and one piece of content.  Just one.  It’s simple.

Their mantra is “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”.  Do you know what is amazing about their products?  Anyone can use an Apple product without much training.  In Isaacson’s recent biography of Jobs, he illustrates a story.  An Apple employee was in South America with an iPad.  A young illiterate boy picked up the iPad and instinctively knew how to use it.  How many steps does it take to get an Overdrive book?  How the heck do you use a basic database?  If we have to teach classes on how to search, then maybe we need to pause and think.  Are the systems being designed for the user, or do we design users for the system?  Of course, more complex products (even from Apple) require training.  But do you offer classes on how to use iTunes (of course some libraries probably do, but that is probably more related to fear of technology from the user than a complex system design).

Just about everything in the library exists in some extremely complex system, even how we arrange books.  In some cases, you need a master’s degree to understand how the system works and what to do to get something from the system.  Please don’t get me wrong.  I’m a cataloger at heart.  But we put this complex mess in front of the users.  Apple’s iTunes has more content than just about any library in the world, yet it is easy to find what you are looking for.  Why?  It is simple.

The complexity of our systems should be on the back end.  The computer should do most of the work.  In reality the computer should run complex subject heading and classification searches behind the scenes and delivery the result.  Instead a library member is expected to do all that work.  It is a joke.

Beautiful

Apple is also known for creating beautiful products.  This ties heavily to the above concept of simplicity.  And even more astounding, Apple expected the parts that no one would ever see to be beautiful and simple.  Imagine an ILS that was simple, easy to use and beautiful for both the patron and the staff.  I have yet to see an ILS cataloging module that is easy.  Why can’t the computer do the work for me?

Libraries do a good job at creating beautiful spaces, more so when we actually have money, but there are some lessons here too.  Have you ever been to an Apple retail outlet?  Not only are the bright, open, inviting, and super busy no matter what time of day, but there is some important branding and image stuff in them.  Apple’s entrance doesn’t have a single sign.  They have no awful “no cell phone” signs.  Nor do they have a “no food, no shirt, no service” sign.  As far as I know, you can walk into their store in a thong with a dog and a cat eating pizza and drinking out of a cup with no lid, and they don’t care.  They trust their customers, which I will discuss later.

Is your website beautiful?  What about your catalog?  Do you remember how truly beautiful card catalogs used to be?  What happened there?  I would die to have an old fashion card catalog, but instead I get some ugly online OPAC.

Apple spends a lot of time and money on creating beautiful products, beautiful stores and ultimately beautiful experiences.  Sometimes they seem to have gone over board, but the lesson is plain.  Beautiful and simple beats better but ugly and complex any day of the week.

To borrow from the occupy movement, our system is created for the 1%.  We create systems based on what some major scholar might need, or some complex searching that a librarian will perform.  But this represents only 1% of our users.  The vast majority of our users want simple and easy, but we design for the what if.  What if someone needs to search using subject headings, ISBN, author, and title combined.  Who needs to do that search? No one.  Not a single person.  EVER!

Retail Experience

I mentioned the retail experience above.  The Apple retail experience is extremely insightful for libraries.  Beside the lack of “shitty” signs, Apple does a lot to create a strong user experience.  Besides trusting their customer (discussed below), they have a strong customer focus philosophy.  Apple’s retail training is strictly guarded, but we do have some insight.  For example A.P.P.L.E. “Approach customers with a personalized warm welcome,” “Probe politely to understand all the customer’s needs,” “Present a solution for the customer to take home today,” “Listen for and resolve any issues or concerns,” and “End with a fond farewell and an invitation to return.”

Apple does not sell it’s customers, but instead sales associates help them solve problems.  Moreover, they are not allowed to say “unfortunately” but instead use “as it turns out”.  They also do not correct mispronunciations for fear of patronizing a customer.  What Apple does is create a positive user experience no matter what store you go to or whom you deal with.  How many of us library leaders have an employee that we know has bad customer service skills and creates negative experiences, yet we let it continue?

Apple’s retail outlets are fun, playful and connecting.  I am a major believer in collaborative computer using and information searching.  When you walk into Apple’s store you tend to see two or more people huddled around a computer.  Libraries see it too.  So Apple has more space for each computer.  Have you noticed that we tend to provide 36 inches per computer, whereas they have up to 60 inches?  What kind of experience do we create by trying to cram so much into such a small space.  Yes, I know that you are space crunched, but is this really your best solution?  How much desk space do you have?  Ok then.

One last thing about Apple retail, they have checkout on the fly.  I think if you walk someone into the stacks, you should be able to check them out right there.  It’s simple technology, so lets make this happen soon.

Radical Trust (sometimes)

Apple has radical trust, sometimes.  In the retail store they have radical trust.  I know that a closed computer system means that they probably don’t trust hackers, but I think the closed system is because of their desire to control the user experience, but we can leave that debate for another day.

Apple has an app that allows you to self-checkout in their store.  Yes, I can walk up to an iPad case scan it with my phone and buy it in iTunes and walk right out of the store.  There is no security system to prevent theft. It is a quick, easy and so simple way for a customer to get what they need and get out.  Seriously, I could walk into Apple and walk out with what ever I need from their floor in 10 seconds or less.  That is just crazy.  I can even finish the purchase as I walk out.

That is radical trust.  Jobs is rumored to have said that “2% will steal, so why do we create a bad experience for 98% of our customers based on the 2%?”  This is what pushed Jobs into iTunes.  It was argued that those who downloaded music wanted to do it for free and illegally.  Jobs argued that no one wanted to steal, but had no alternative.  iTunes alone, could easily be a model for libraries and another blog post for another day.  But it demonstrates that people want to do the right thing.  iTunes demonstrates that easy beats free any day of the weak.  Let’s face we could all steal music today so easily, but we chose not to. Shouldn’t we treat our patrons accordingly?

Team

Apple also has a unique approach to staffing and teams.  Of course, I don’t advocate call employees “bozos” or their work “shit”” but I do believe in creating the highest expectations ever.  Apple pushed people to their limits.  The created an environment where people would reach potentials they didn’t know they could.  I would love that environment.

Apple also hates division.  They forced teams together.  I have written before about how technical services, circulation, acquisitions, reference, instruction, outreach and readers’ services hurt an organization.  When you look at the idea of integration, but then you see an organization like ours, you can see why there is no control, and stuff takes so long to get done.  Yes, even Apple agrees that you need organizational structure, but for what purpose?  Apple wanted teams to work together.  The idea that two heads is better than one, is a truly powerful maxim.

In the library environment, the departments feud with each other.  This creates a hostile work environment in which collaboration simply cannot thrive.  In all honesty, when was the last time your technical services and your reference staff actually collaborated?  I’m not talking about a joint project, that a leader approved, but an actually collaboration.

Apple also cuts the fat, or drops dead weight.  Apple is known for only having A players.  Sometimes B players were pushed hard to make them A players, but more often than not, they were fired.  In lots of libraries, we have lousy staff.  We know it.  We joke about it.  We even lament it.  But the truth is if you fail in another profession you end up here.  Even worse, good C players end up with promotions and then you have an entire C rated organization.  Any A players there are pushed downward until they only strive for C results.

Yes, perhaps I’m hard on library staff today.  I have worked with some great people.  But even that statement says a lot.  They are great people not great librarians or library staff.  Most of our staff strives for the status quo, or mediocrity. They plan for tomorrow based on what happened yesterday.

Implications for Libraries (or what I think we should do)

OK, so I wrote a long post here.  Likely few will read it, and most will likely disagree.  Guess what? This message isn’t for you.

This message is for those daring enough to “think different”.  I, like many of you, grow tired of hearing people complain without offering solutions, so here are my solutions.

1. Start a revolution.
2. Fire all the vendors.  Seriously, we need to get back into this game and our vendors won’t do it for us.  We need to start our own company to offer integrated, seamless, and simple products.  I don’t have the technical know how to do this, but I have a vision, and more importantly, I am willing to walk the walk not just talk the talk.  I am willing to put up $5,000 to fund a real solution that benefits the people our libraries serve.  Screw allowing companies focused on profits instead of solutions owning us anymore.  I believe that we are nearing the end of the game if we don’t do this.  You, like me, buy our eBooks far too much.  Either the waiting list is too long, we don’t have access, or it’s just too complicated.  If we do it, why do we expect anything less from our patrons?  Moreover, we use Google Scholar instead of the databases because it is often times better and simpler.  In most cases, complex searching is not needed.  Our users are looking for good enough, not perfect.  No one has time for that anymore.  And, all searching (books, articles, movies, music, etc…) should be in one place and in one product.  Enough bouncing people all over the place.
3. Instill a true customer service focus in your organization.  Follow the Apple retail model.  And more importantly, do EVER make your customer, user, patron or library member feel like a criminal, stupid, inadequate, or have any type of negative experience.  Help them find solutions and feel good about themselves in the process.
4. Destroy any organizational structure that doesn’t lead to a better organization or user experience for the patron.
5. Fire all “shitty” staff.  This one I’m pretty serious about.
6. Combine creativity, art, the humanities, with technology and information.  In other words, create a digital media lab in your library.  No matter what the scale, just do it.  Also, give patrons room to use computers together.  Let them talk.
7. Throw away every sign you have up.  Even better, ask your library users if they even know what’s on them.
8. Go back to dealing with the publisher, and even directly with the authors.  In days gone by, libraries dealt with the publisher directly.  Removing ourselves to save a few bucks has now cost us way too much.  Even more important, ask the authors to sell directly to you.  Ask them to change their contracts so they can.  I think we would be surprised if we asked them, what they might say.
9. Remember patrons don’t need us anymore.  In the past, distribution models and pricing caused a real need for us.  Bookstore as we know them today, or knew them yesterday, did not exist like that.  It used to be damn near impossible to get some books, especially in rural areas.  Thomas Jefferson would wait up to 6 months for book to arrive from Europe.  It’s now so easy and relatively cheap.  Easy and fast beats free any day.  And the notion that some can’t afford this stuff won’t care us forever.  Instead we ought to focus on creating a want in our patrons for us.  We do this through creating powerful user experiences.  Experiences that we need to control, and we simply cannot do this in our current model.

Libraries have been facing an uphill battle in collecting and disseminating eBooks for American citizens.  While the eBook issues around Overdrive and the Big 6 publishing houses as well as the role of Amazon are worthy of a separate debate, I want to focus on a different, much bigger issue.  While the debates about how to deal with eBooks rage on, one enduring value of libraries has fallen to the wayside.  The eBook issue needs to be framed in a different philosophical light.  The recent struggle to obtain access to eBooks for libraries is a freedom to read and equity of access matter.

The real issue here is the issue of human rights, inequality and social justice.  Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (italics mine).  American citizens, regardless of economic status, have a fundamental right to seek and receive information through any format, especially when that format becomes mainstream.  Just about 1 in 3 Americans owns a tablet or eReader.

The Freedom to Read Statement of our American Library Association states “The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove or limit access to reading materials…”  The shift to a commercial only model for the delivery of eBook content is a limit to access for many Americans.   “It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians to give full meaning to the freedom to read by providing books that enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression.”  This is reiterated in the American Library Association Policy Manual “Libraries and librarians protect and promote [freedom of expression] by selecting, producing, providing access to, identifying, retrieving, organizing, providing instruction in the use of, and preserving recorded expression regardless of the format or technology (italics mine).

The shift into digital content creates an economic barrier to the access of information for many of our citizens.  As Seanan McGuire, an author in her own right, laments “every time a discussion of ebooks turns, seemingly inevitably, to “Print is dead, traditional publishing is dead, all smart authors should be bailing to the brave new electronic frontier,” what I hear, however unintentionally, is “Poor people don’t deserve to read”.  Seanan captures the true issue facing our society.  Many of the citizens of our country simply cannot afford to purchase eBooks.

David Rothman continues “Those are the kinds of issues I’ve been begging the Digital Public Library of America to take action on, either directly or through alliances with other organizations of all kinds. Unless the DPLA and others pay more attention to the needs of the non-elite, e-books will widen rather than close up the digital and academic divides”.

I’m not alone in recognizing the eBook issue as an issue of human rights and social justice.  Sarah Houghton and Andy Woodworth put together an eBook User Bill of Rights.  While the Bill of Rights focuses on legal issues and digital rights management they do conclude that they are “concerned about the future of access to literature and information in eBooks” for library patrons and American citizens.   For a time, the notion of eBooks rights even spread to social media.  For example, Twitter was awash in conversation under the hashtag #ebookrights.

eBooks can serve as a powerful catalyst for our society and for how libraries serve the public.  They have the power to free information from the oligarchic control of a few publishers.  eBooks can truly democratize information and give a voice to so many silent Americans.  We are seeing this already with the many authors who publish direct to Amazon or some other corporation.  However, eBooks also have the power to serve corporate greed and overly restrict access to information for the have-nots of our society.   Maybe eBooks are changing everything, but not in the way we think.  Perhaps we are trading one evil for a worse evil.

I don’t think print will die in my lifetime, but it seems clear that a transition is underway.  Over the next few years it seems likely that a growing percentage of eBook exclusive publishing will continue.  What is the long term effect of this?  Imagine if Dickens had published direct through Amazon.  Not a single library would legally be able to provide access to his work.  The commercial only model of a content delivery will likely have a deep and long-lasting impact on our society.  While unfettered access to eBooks  is “not the equivalent of emancipation, it is in a more limited but essential way the precondition for engaging in struggles around both relations of meaning and relations of power.  To be literate is not to be free, it is to be present and active in the struggle for reclaiming one’s voice, history, and future” (Freire & Macedo, 1987, p. 11)