CHAPTER FOUR – LIBRARY 2.0 MODEL
4.8 Implementing Library 2.0
Little is written on Library 2.0 implementation. Casey and Savastinuk (2007b) suggest that each library should map its own unique route to Library 2.0. They add that how Library 2.0 works within an organization varies a great deal based on that library‟s community and organization structure.
They also suggest that before taking the leap, the library‟s community should first seek to understand where their library is; how it is currently serving its users; where they (the community) would like it to be; and how Library 2.0 can take it there. Clearly, this is a participatory process in which all the stakeholders are involved in evaluating the prevailing scenario and mapping an appropriate way forward through various shades of collaboration and consensus building mechanisms (Stephens and Casey 2005) and is aimed at meeting changing customer needs, staying relevant culturally, and keeping the library‟s digital space up-to-date (King 2007b).
122
David Lee King (2007b) also suggests that before a library moves to a 2.0 platform it should ask itself the following questions:
1. Why set up the new services? It is important to justify the change and demonstrate the benefits which the new services will accrue to the library, the parent institution and the community at large. New services should not just be introduced for the sake of it or just because other libraries have done likewise. Every new service designed and commissioned should add value to the library and its patrons.
2. What new services to set up? There are many options. The library management should be aware of the existing options, their advantages and disadvantages as well their suitability for the specific library context. The possible options should be weighed against the library‟s vision and mission and the most suitable service(s) chosen. It may also be prudent to expand the options horizon to include systems that could possibly be developed in-house. This is especially desirable for libraries that have very unique needs and adequate staffing.
3. Who will do what part? The 2.0 environment requires the participation of both the library staff and patrons. It is important that each party understands what their role would be. They should also be empowered to perform the assigned roles adequately.
4. How to make it happen? The library management should develop an elaborate plan on how to make the 2.0 dream a reality. This may include acquisition of equipment and systems, skilled staff members, as well as development of new procedures and institutional frameworks to support the new model.
5. When should it be rolled out? Some new 2.0 tools like blogs take just a few minutes to develop and launch. The big question here is: when would it be appropriate to do what? To add value, the new systems should not be introduced hurriedly but gradually.
Murphy (2008) argues that a library needs a suitable game plan to make the 2.0 switch successfully.
He explains that this game plan should consider the establishment of standards; staffing; policies;
user involvement and expectations; user and staff training; costing; marketing and promotion; and monitoring and evaluation. Cohen (2007b), on her part, outlines an action plan for transforming a traditional (1.0) library into a 2.0 model in which she also proposes prior adequate understanding of the concept by the library stakeholders before attempting to implement it. She argues that this prior understanding enables the library stakeholders to appreciate how the provisions of the new model are different from their current one. It also helps them to see how their users are likely to benefit
123
from it and whether it is addressing any of the challenges they are currently facing. The process also enables the libraries to understand the levels of investment needed to facilitate this transformation.
Once this is done, she recommends the following steps:
1. Formal assessment of the library as a whole to identify the areas which need to change.
Users, staff as well as other members of the library community should be involved in this process so as to make it participatory;
2. Work with all stakeholders to identify areas where new Library 2.0 tools can be used to make the services better; and
3. Selectively introduce the tools in a systematic manner ensuring user/staff participation and induction at all stages of the process. If needs be, staff training may be undertaken or new staff recruited to ensure that there are adequate human resources to implement the project.
Other scholars (Rivera et al. 2006; Helling 2007; King 2007b) highly recommend the creation and use of committees to facilitate the transformation. They argue that this is a much easier and faster strategy than trying to achieve the same with all stakeholders at the same time. Helling (2007) also explains that there are some Library 2.0 tools which are available free while some may have to be bought. The availability of free, or low-cost, application software offers a means of testing ideas and may be a cost effective way for expertise in use of Library 2.0 technologies to be gained. In short, the library needs to scout for all alternatives before selecting the best options.
Schneider (2006) also suggests that a library needs to do the following to successfully launch a 2.0 library:
1. Identify and prioritize just a few new services the library should introduce to deliver differently;
2. Develop an appropriate action plan and procedure of how to accomplish these;
3. Accomplish the identified tasks one at a time; and
4. Monitor the successes and/or failures of the projects continuously.
Transforming a library from its original service framework, especially if it is the traditional model, is bound to face various challenges. Helling (2007) identifies some of the challenges most libraries are likely to face when implementing the 2.0 model as:
124
1. Staff turnover which may disrupt the programme especially if any members of the core Library 2.0 team are involved;
2. Use of Library 2.0 tools which are inappropriate for the context of the adopting library;
3. Resistance to the proposed or implemented elements of change by various members of the library community;
4. Technological challenges such as the need for updates and licensing; and
5. Some of the core services or tools may be outside the direct control of the implementing libraries.
In such cases Helling (2007) proposes the following best practices in implementing Library 2.0:
1. Constant training and re-training of staff to boost the competence pool;
2. Preparation of adequate budgets for Library 2.0 model tools as well as the staff to handle them;
3. Reduction of the level of third party Library 2.0 service dependencies, for instance, by building the capacity of staff members to improve or support the third-party tools in-house;
4. Flexible budgeting to cater for any contingencies during implementation; and 5. Establishment of the services the clients really want so as to minimize resistance.
Brown (2009) also recommends that it is prudent to introduce the changes when the patrons are in the right state of mind to receive them. This may require preparing the users adequately to understand the new model. The preparation may take the form of training, open discussions on the model, harnessing the users‟ expectations and fears regarding the model, adopting a Library 2.0 model, and building the capacity of the librarians to support the new model and explain it effectively to the users (West 2005).
On her part, Wright (2007) gives the “ten commandments” for effective Library 2.0 implementation as:
1. Listen to your staff;
2. Involve staff in planning;
3. Tell stories – demonstrate why and how;
4. Be transparent;
5. Report and debrief;
125
6. Do your research;
7. Manage projects efficiently and effectively;
8. Formally convene the Emerging Technology Group;
9. Training 2.0: Let everyone play and experience; and 10. Celebrate success.
It is evident from the foregoing that implementing Library 2.0 is a complex process and can be varied depending on the context of the implementing library. However, the best practices that can be derived from the various recommendations above include:
1. A situational analysis and an evaluation of the library and its services. This is the first step towards assessing the current status of the library services and products and the extent to which they meet the needs of the users. This process enables the library to identify its strengths and weaknesses which can then be used to demonstrate threats and opportunities.
2. Evaluation of the potential of Library 2.0 model as a possible framework for enriching the library services so as to meet the needs of the patrons. This is done best through working committees which should include users, librarians, managers as well as ICT personnel in the institutions. Basically, this committee explores Library 2.0 tools and assesses their suitability for efficient delivery of library services in the context of the specific institution.
3. The committee develops a strategy and plan of action through elaborate consultation with the other stakeholders. The strategy should clearly express the specific areas of library services Library 2.0 tools would support and how. It should also establish the roles of each member of the library community such as users, staff members, and sponsors in the process of adopting Library 2.0 model. It should also include the necessary work-plans, budgets, specific activities, timeframes and outcomes which can be summarized in a relevant matrix.
4. The strategy is executed in a phased manner gradually moving from experimentation to domestication of Library 2.0 tools and platforms. Necessary Library 2.0 systems and tools can be bought or developed in-house. It is advisable that the library begins with peripheral services before moving to the core ones. This would forestall possible disruption of key services during the experimentation period. Elaborate testing and modifications should be done before the official launch of Library 2.0 modules as per the implementation matrix.
5. Once the systems are tested and approved, all the users and staff members should be trained to build their capacity to make the best use of the systems. The training should be in-depth
126
and scenario-based so that users can get to acquaint themselves adequately with what they can do with the systems and how. Training manuals and other documentation should be made available online to facilitate easy reference. Where possible, users can act as peer- trainers. This normally yields better buy-in and uptake of the new model. Adequate time and resources should be set aside for this phase of the project otherwise it would not succeed.
6. The committee should constantly monitor the system and make provisions for modification, addition or removal of modules and parts thereof. Given that the Library 2.0 model uses tools that are dynamic, appropriate measures should be in place to detect changes in the infosphere and act accordingly.
Critically, Penzhorn and Pienaar (2009) assert that the success of any Library 2.0 project depends heavily on the participation of all the stakeholders. Specifically, they recommend that the librarians should devise the best strategies and tactics to unravel the needs and expectations of the users before they (librarians) can set out to meet them using the Library 2.0 tools such as social networking utilities.