A good friend of mine is at InfoComm13—a tradeshow I wish I were attending. He texted me this photo:

Apparently this woman was in California and interacting with folks in Orlando. She could hear him standing/walking nearby and engaged him in conversation.

This is BEAM. It’s a mobile, WiFi powered, video-conferencing, remote presence system. The features are listed on the website, and it is an interesting concept. The fact that it has wheels and can move at 3 mph following someone around is different;  I have not seen this full package  before.

At first I thought—could this work as a reference tool? Could it push us beyond the desk as a new twist on roving reference? Or what about tours? What about meetings? Could students or faculty use it for their own meetings too?

Or how about this: imagine that you have potential students or recently accepted students visiting some type of orientation booth—everyone does the same old thing, but if you a BEAM that could grab some attention.

It’s a little bizarre I’ll grant you that, but for a “tech” school it could be one of those small things that really creates a powerful impression on users. I’m still processing this idea  but wanted to share. Something a little fun for a summer Friday.

Note: The Beam link seems to be having trouble. Here it is in long form: https://www.suitabletech.com/beam/

Context is an interesting phenomenon. When conversations or attitudes from one space merge or are invaded from the outside, there is a good chance for misunderstanding to occur. This happened to me last night.

People who know me– people who really know me– know that I love Apple. I came into their products later in life via my wife, but I’ve never looked back. I am firmly and admittedly in the Cult of Mac.

Much of it has to do with brand and mythology. Steve Jobs was an amazing persona, but the early connection with IDEO is also special for me. Apple’s priority on design resonates with my user experience side and they talk about technology differently than everyone else… although yesterday’s WWDC was a little conventional—too much about numbers and features and not enough “wow”—I was hoping for the announcement of a new product category.

But Apple is more than just marketing hype. Their products truly are amazing. When I used Windows I often encountered BSOD. There were many other performance issues that I won’t get into, but let’s just say I was an unsatisfied customer. I did publically praise their boldness with tiles, but I seem to be one of the few who actually likes that new direction

So is this really about technology? JJ Abrams summed it up well when talking about his work:

“What can I write that’ll be worthy of my beautiful black Macbook?”

I feel something similar. And while I know it is psychological, it impacts me. When I was writing my book the HP I had kept crashing. It was obviously a very frustrating experience. So I switched to Dell and that crashed too. The entire writing process from that project is mired in negative memories because of the technology obstacles.

Switching to Apple not only wiped away those issues but also infused a different type of emotion into my work. I could never have written startup on a Windows-based machine. I could not follow GTD without my iPhone. And it’s getting harder and harder for me to read constructively without the text being on my iPad and the related ecosystem.

For me, personally, using Apple products is a powerful stimulant for creativity and productivity. It is probably similar to Nike. It’s not the shoes that make athletes better, it is the way the athlete feels about himself while wearing those shoes. In short: it’s about confidence and attitude. I physically and emotionally feel different when using Apple than I do Microsoft. I can’t explain it beyond that.

Getting to the point

A colleague posted that she was excited about iOS7. There were a handful of expected responses and I chimed in with my typical pro-Apple anti-Microsoft commentary. But then someone jumped in and used the term “EVIL” when describing Apple fanaticism. This person went on to say:

“if you were *really* happy with Apple products, you wouldn’t feel the need to put down anybody who doesn’t use them.”

This is where context comes into play. Obviously this person doesn’t know me or he would know that I genuinely love Apple products. Secondly, this person had no context for the conversation. For me, talking about technology is very similar to talking about sports. Yankees and Sox. Michigan and Ohio State. Lakers and Celtics.

Part of the fun is all the bravado and allegiance to a brand. I have friends (and even a family member) who love Microsoft and this is an established part of our relationship: we bash each other’s teams or brands– sports, technology, music, even philosophers. This is the context that I was using. This person obviously didn’t get that and even when so far as posting:

 “Maybe someday you’ll gain inner peace and stop telling us we’re wrong if we disagree.”

Not sure the “us” he was referring to. I could take that so many different directions but I feel like he was baiting me rather than trying to have a serious conversation. Obviously there is a lack of humor in his understanding. And I’ll just say, one should not focus solely on inner peace but also develop their outer peace too. Be holistic!

If this were a random person I would not be posting today. The fact is, this is a person I admired when I was in library school. His writing is very different and he has strong control of voice and identity. Even though I don’t always agree with his content, I admire his style. He’s put out a lot of great stuff. So I’m feeling very conflicted here. What do you do when a former idol talks down to you? That’s where my mind has been this morning.

Tools vs. Emotions 

Why do I feel differently about technology than he does? Perhaps the keyword is right there: feel. Our personal and emotional investment is very different, perhaps, making it impossible for us to understand each other?

This is something I’ve encountered before. I’ve heard faculty refer to technology as “just a tool and nothing else.” I’ve heard colleagues refer to iPads as toys. I’ve heard countless IT professionals talk about managing technology and managing users, rather than empowering people to do amazing things.

I know there are some really creative people who use and love Microsoft, but generally when I hear them talk it, it is about a functional relationship. For me, technology is an emotional relationship.

This was evident to me when I recently cracked an iPad. I knew my content was backed up and that I could easily purchase a new one, but there was this odd bond that I had formed with the device. The reaction was different than if I had broken a hammer or a screwdriver.

Apple products are my interface, my canvas, my lab. They are my ideation center. They are my channel for exploring, discovering, composing, designing, and sharing. I don’t feel that way about a tape measure, a spatula, or a bucket. Apple products are not tools to me—they are an essential part of my creative process.

The person who made those comments views technology as a means to an end. He is a self-described tool-user. Technology is used for solving problems. And that’s the key difference between us. Computers are a means of expression for me, not a means to an end, not a work processor or a spreadsheet. It is a highly personal thing—like how one feels about a band or a sports team. To some people this is just a shirt, but to others is something more meaningful.

I can’t expect people to understand my feelings about machines, but likewise, it is hard for me to understand people who feel this just a machine.

Ok, back to library and higher education topics next time. I’m filing this post away as therapy. I would disable the comments if I could, but the Chronicle controls the settings. Thanks for reading.

But that feels too vague. If I provide office hours in a classroom building or if I interact with a class via the course management system— am I embedded? Technically, yes, but this is a gray area to me. There are different degrees of experiences.

The more I think about embedded librarianship, and I will confess I have not read much of the emerging conversation, the question I’m having is with depth. How engaged are we? Are we simply serving a traditional librarian role in an nontraditional environment or is there something else to it? Are we changing our context or are we just changing our location? If I setup a table in the student center to answer reference questions– am I just extending the ref desk or should I reconfigure my role/behavior/approach to match the culture of that particular environment?

I thought about this over the weekend and two engagement models emerged: Doctors Without Borders and the Peace Corps.

Doctors Without Borders provides medical assistance to people threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe.

The Peace Corps provide assistance with technical, social, and economic development.

Both play advocacy roles. Both work directly to help people through the provision of services or engagement. Both change lives.

But there are several big differences too. One is focused on providing treatment, while the other is focused on improving community infrastructure. One is a service provider, while the other operates more like a participant-observer. One is transactional, the other is longitudinal.

To me it seems to boil down to the scope and shape of the interaction. On one side you have solutions-delivery and on the other a productivity-building objective.

Depending on the discipline or partner, the approach we use might vary. But I actually used this concept today during a meeting while talking about our Living-Learning Communities. Instead of just showing up and delivering “library skills” we need a deeper cultural immersion before we really know what is necessary or how to build that program.

The point I’m trying to make is that embeddedness is a spectrum. Consider the embedded journalist in this framework—that is a very different role than Doctors or Peace Corps volunteers. It is easy to toss around the embedded label but obviously it means different things to different people.

If you’ve dabbled in this area I’d like to collect a few high impact case studies. How have you reinvented the role of the library through embeddedness?

I’ve been watching a string of dark movies lately (Argo, Django, Zero Dark) and a friend recommended I change it up with Singin’ In The Rain. I’ll admit that this movie was nowhere near my watch list: I don’t do musicals! But I watched and enjoyed it.

There is a pivotal moment in the film when a group of actors, producers, and others from the silent film era first encounter a talking picture.

• First there is doubt:  “that’s not possible”
• Then skepticism: “it’s a toy”
• Then anger: “it’s vulgar”
• Then fear: “aww, but will they ever use it?”
• And finally denial: “it will never amount to a thing”

This scene resonated with me in conjunction with the numerous academics that are dismissive of emerging technologies like Google Glass, 3D Printing, and eBook Readers.

I know that some people want to be snarky contrarians, but that seems like such a sad life. I can understand fear. And I can understand uncertainty: how would I use it? But to be completely dismissive without any firsthand experience is unfortunate.

Google Glass might not be the life-change experience that it is hyped to be—but what if it is? Regardless, wearable computing will evolve. Glass is making it possible for others to attract grants and venture capital, and to further build out this technology category. And it isn’t new; Google is just making it popular—like Apple and personal computers.

Maker Spaces might not be for everyone, but some libraries are having success and experiencing demand for these knowledge-generation services. I’ve had numerous engineering and architecture students ask for this service. I met with an instructor this week who is seeking to change curriculum based on 3D printing capabilities.

Many of the tools we’ll need in the future have not been invented yet. I’ll admit that I tend to be more of an early adopter rather than a laggard, but these emerging technologies, in a historical sense, are really just prototypes. Our questions should along the lines of “how do we make them better” or “what does this enable me to do that I couldn’t do before?”

Of course there are people who criticize and people who create. That will never change. You might not like a new technology but to be oblivious that a shift is occurring is just unfortunate.

The comedic figure in Singin’ In The Rain pipes in at the end of the scene, after everyone else dismisses “talking pictures” as something that will never catch on, and remarks: “that’s what they said about the horseless carriage” I’ll leave it at that for now, but I do recommend this book: The Master Switch: the rise and fall of information empires

Note: here is a link to the direct clip URL

We are working on a library renovation and a topic that comes up is desktops. A number of these are necessary for specialized software, but what if all software applications flow to the cloud? Maybe what we really need to plan is for really nice monitors and a fast data connection?

Thinking beyond hardware… does software become similar to journal subscriptions in which users authenticate and proxy in? Will we provide campus-wide subscriptions to everyone or perhaps on-demand (use as you go) model? Will every computer everywhere become the “the media lab” rather than designated spots on campus? Do the software tools that we (the University) provide (via the cloud) become a recruiting asset? And what happens once students graduate?

Does this framework enable collaboration across organizations? For example, could I design something online with someone at Georgia Tech? Or could students enrolled in my school collaborative with students at other schools or with people from industry, government, or other countries? If the tools we use are fully networked then how might that enable the work we do to become more networked as well?

Obviously I have lots of questions. As I said, I’m still pondering the news. Adobe moving in this direction feels like something more just dabbling with the cloud—they are betting their business on it. It seems connected thematically to a larger transition of mediums (music, film, radio, books, etc) to a network rather than a hard drive or other physical artifact (print, DVD, CD, etc.) It is becoming less and less about “the stuff I own” and more and more about “the stuff I license or subscribe to.” There is something more significant here than just Photoshop moving to online-only. This is quite possibly a transformative moment in the history of software, computers, design, and human interaction… maybe? As Adobe says… it’s time for a change… not just with where the software lives but with how we use it, and perhaps even how we define “software” going forward.

Question: Is this the new “land-grant” university?

If the federal government  will fund online universities (via financial aid for tuition and fees) and accreditation organizations recognize these degrees as equivalent to other state-operated higher ed schools—is this the land-grant for the 21^st century? Is this the new environment that opens up affordable and diverse education to a larger audience? Is this a contemporary approach to acquiring and developing skills, insights, and experiences for professional development and personal enrichment?

One of the core objectives of the original land-grant program was to provide broader access to education. The federal government gave land to the states for schools based upon this mission. Fast-forward 150 years and now the government is endorsing virtual campuses.  Online learning can potentially magnify the initial effort, enabling many more citizens the opportunity to advance their learning. Land-grant universities were designed to help transition into an industrial society– are we experiencing a similar transition into a digital society?

Just trying to connect some dots. Where is higher education heading?

A big surprise was the development of The Startup Library. I wasn’t involved, but I’m glad that it happened. It’s nice to see that my paper influenced some entrepreneurial discussions.

Lately though I’ve noticed a new response: anger. Maybe disgruntlement is a better word. At conferences or online, some librarians are lamenting that they work in environments that are not innovative. And since I write and talk on that theme they expect me to have the answers for them. I don’t. I’m not a consultant. I’m an experimenter. The objective of my paper was to get people thinking, talking, and acting more entrepreneurially. It wasn’t designed as a blueprint, but as a conversation starter.

Changing culture is tough and I definitely have a lot to learn. But with so much changing all around us, we need to be able to change too. We need a framework that encourages this to happen. And I hear it from both sides at every conference I attend. Administrators wishing that their employees would embrace new roles. And staff or librarians wishing that their administrators would embrace new ideas. It seems there is a lot of disconnection in our libraries. Perhaps the first step is having a shared vision: why does your library exist?

This is why I think change requires a flexible label. Change needs a brand. It needs texture and context. Change without a wrapper is just chaos. The wrapper that I use is startup. It’s a temporary construct. It’s a guiding framework. It’s an operational vision. It’s a working draft waiting to be edited.

What I like about startup is the attitude. Perhaps everything is smooth sailing in your library, but everywhere I’ve worked has been undergoing tremendous transformation. There is a lot of uncertainty. There are a lot of unknowns. There are a lot of changes outside of our control: pedagogy, publishing, research requirements, technology, and so on.

Startup addresses this uncertainty with a group-bonding framework. We don’t know the future so let’s figure it out together. We’re going to explore new service models. We’re going to explore new audiences. We’re going to explore new user needs. We’re going to dabble with new technology and tools. We’re going to add new expertise. Things are going to change and then change again, but that’s okay, because we’re in startup mode– we’re expecting it.

Change becomes something that people invest in because they are helping to drive it—they’re looking for it. We start talking about outcomes and aspirations. We have permission to be wrong, to pivot, to succeed, or to fail. We have permission to dream and follow unusual ideas. We have permission to seek new problems or to test new approaches. We have permission to work with different people. We have permission to stop doing things that no longer have an impact. We have permission to change our schedule and workloads.

In short, startup puts us into a mindset to be creative and innovative — that’s what I expect from my employees and what they expect from me. This becomes the fabric of our culture.

So there’s that— the attitude, but startup is also a methodology: build, measure, learn. Details here. This application is being used by government agencies and non-profits. It’s not just students in their dorms with billion dollar ideas– it’s a project management tool.

Startup isn’t about profits or IPOs or websites– it is ideation and implementation. How do we find new needs? How do we address these needs? What isn’t working that we should stop doing? How can we absorb this new role? What do our users need us to become? What does the library enable people to accomplish?

Maybe this framework doesn’t work for you or your organization. That’s cool. I’ve found it very helpful as I’ve moved into administration. Startup offers a change-oriented, collaborative, invent-the-future mindset, while also providing a functional toolset for evaluating, developing, designing, and delivering new stuff.

My advice — find a shared vision that works in your organization. Maybe it’s DIY, or Grassroots, or user experience, or whatever label you need. Talk about it. Name it. Use it. Build a brand. This helps everyone understand expectations and aspirations. This helps the culture.

I expect my employees to ask for time, money, support, advice, recommendations, partnerships, etc. And from them I expect a return on investment—a positive new impact on our users, a new service or teaching model, greater operational efficiency, a new web feature, a new capacity, or a case study of what went wrong. That’s the culture I’m developing around my employees.

More info about what we’re building at Virginia Tech: Hubs & Centers

Here is a piece from the intro:

Libraries of science and technology universities worldwide are adapting to a changing environment where cyberinfrastructure, eResearch, and new technology-intensive approaches to teaching and learning are transforming the very nature of universities. While many have adopted new technologies and the resources and expertise to manage them, this is only an initial step. Libraries are experimenting with organizational models that will transform their work capacity and expertise. The goal of these libraries is being an entity that feeds and produces collaborative synergies between faculty, students, information professionals, and technologists.

VT Libraries Strategic Thinking Dashboard

This is a key piece: “While many library leaders can see what their organizations need to become, the process of selecting methods, tools, and organizational theories that will transform their libraries remain unclear and challenging.”

Again, it is still early days for us, but we are experimenting with several models. We’ll be sharing more about this later in the year. Julie has some great ideas about the research side and here is more of my thinking about learning. Maybe we’ll try to put together a webinar if people are interested. Things are very much in the moment right now– but it’s helpful to document the process.

Download: (paper and presentation slides)

HUBS AND CENTERS AS TRANSITIONAL CHANGE STRATEGY FOR LIBRARY COLLABORATION

I was surprised by the attitude that the session generated. There was a lot of “damn the man” talk and being a library administrator I guess I’m part of the problem now. As I listened I kept contrasting their attitude with startup thinking. While both DIY and startup argue for change, they differ quite a bit. Here are a few quick notes:

Destruction vs. Disruption
Many of the DIYers mentioned the need for creative destruction. In startup the aim is for innovative disruption. DIY wants to rebuild from scratch whereas startup wants hack the code—redefine what something can do.

The biggest question I had: “what does an ideal DIYed Library look like?” Draw it out with images, not words. Show me what it looks like—mock-up it. What does it do differently? How does it operate? Who pays the bills? It’s a raw concept that needs some bones and vital organs.

There was a lot of talk on how the current “system is broken” — OK – so what should the system look like? Don’t all systems break eventually? Can you build an agile system? There didn’t seem to be a roadmap, just a lot of rhetoric. And maybe it’s too early for tangible plans, but that would be my advice: create a vision that people can understand, respond, adapt, remix, personalize, scale, and implement. Show us the change you desire.

Startup works both sides of change: continuous and discontinuous. Work is done to improve current operations (needs) while breakout / game-changing ideas are explored as well.

I/WE vs. THE USERS
DIYers talked a lot about “I” and “We.” Here is what I think. Here is what we need to do. I don’t believe I heard anyone advocate for the users. Here is what users need and hence we need to change. It felt more librarian-centered rather than user-centered. Maybe their focus is on changing the profession not the performance of libraries– but that all seems interconnected.

Entrepreneurship is closely aligned with niche creation—find a need and fill it. It’s the pursuit of filling in gaps or adopting new tools and creating new behaviors. The outcome is helping users with whatever their task or job-to-be-done involves.

DIY seemed concerned with personal expression and less so with connecting with user needs.

Independence vs. Partnerships
DIY relishes the self-made. Independence is a critical attribute. One of the panelists argued for building our own software tools, such as platform-agnostic e-readers or a Mendeley-like service.

While startups share this inventive spirit—they either want to get bought by “the man” or to “become the man.” The objective though, is addressing problems with creative ideas and then shipping the solution widely. Sometimes this involves working with competitors. Helping Eliseiver develop a better product is better than doing nothing and just complaining about Eliseiver. Which helps users more in the end?

Startup tends to want a large user base, while DIY tends to prefer a more narrow audience. Mass appeal vs. artisan appreciation?

$$$
DIY relishes self-funded—in fact, it is a point of pride.

Startup begins self-funded but then gains prestige or legitimacy when external partners invest: the idea is validated.

Angry vs. Optimistic
During the DIY session there was a lot of “traditional libraries are dead,” “down with the system,” and “subversion of bureaucracy.”

I could not tell if this was part of a hipster aesthetic or genuine frustration. Was it that people didn’t like their bosses or their colleagues or their libraries or even libraries in general? I don’t know, but I do know that no one stood up and said: a faculty member had a particular need, so I went around “the system” and developed a something for them. That would have impressed me. A critical part of being a librarian is looking for backdoors, loopholes, ways-around, and doing whatever it takes to deliver the solution.

In contrast—every startup entrepreneur I’ve met has been wildly (naively) optimistic and excited about what they are doing. That’s the attitude I want to hire: someone who believes that everything is possible. Someone committed to pushing the boundaries. Someone who makes changes from within the system. Use whatever label you want but people who makeithappen

Granted, this session focused on org culture and not necessary on job performance or DIY practices, but all and all it felt more like a vent session rather than one about empowerment.

Survival vs. Reshaping
One of the panelists posted:

“DIY culture in libraries is less about creativity and more about basic survival. A traditional library is a dead library. We know this: if libraries don’t change they will fade away, eclipsed by the free, the instant, and the easy.”

While Library DIY is focused on survival, Library Startup is about shaping or reshaping the delivery of services. Startup isn’t focused on sustaining libraries– it is focused on helping libraries evolve. When you take the long view — some roles of the library today might end of being distributed around our campuses. The entrepreneurial concern is on finding the best service models and practices to advance the needs of users.

Closing Thoughts
If I had to sum it up, based on the conversation of the session, DIY seems focused on “rebellion” whereas I see startup is focused on “programming” or “reprogramming.”

Both movements, if we can use that word, are traveling in similar directions, but they have different destinations and ultimately different ways of getting there.

Both are useful for getting librarians and staff (and others) to think and talk about change. Both are calls to action. Both are trendy right now.

DIY feels more like a political statement than an innovation statement. Maybe it will take shape.  Or maybe its leaders prefer the vagueness? Regardless, I wish the Lead Pipe well but encourage them to draw it out. If DIY was an operating system, what would it look like? And what might it look like if Library DIY and Library Startup came together?

I was invited to present a paper at ACRL based upon my entrepreneurial writings. I decided to write about the pursuit of good problems, which has become a guiding philosophy in my work. I think it’s going to be a good talk. I’m having fun putting the content together and it addresses a different piece of the innovation discussion.

Friday, April 12, 1:30PM, Wabash 2-3, Indianapolis Convention Center

Here is the closing thought that sums it all up:

Our intention should never be to give people what they want. Rather, through the art of problem discovery, we can design and develop the capacities, service models, and solutions necessary to deliver what people need in order to accomplish the outcomes they desire.  (more)

 

]]> http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/theubiquitouslibrarian/2013/04/02/the-art-of-problem-discovery-invited-paper-acrl-2013/feed/ 0