Thing #12 - Discussion of "Away from the 'icebergs'"

"Away from the 'icebergs'" is the title of an article on Web 2.0 written by Rick Anderson, and can be read at http://www.oclc.org/nextspace/002/2.htm. Thing #12 from the TLC 2.0 project ( http://blogs.library.nova.edu/tlc/?page_id=130) asks us to read two articles from a list of five and discuss one. I chose to discuss this one, because I have been considering the concept of "just in case" vs. "just in time" as related to library service for some time. Mr. Anderson considers the "just in case" collection development philosophy to be an "iceberg" in this new era of technology, one of three that he sees as threatening to the boat of librarianship. Well, let us examine the issue of "just in case" vs. "just in time." This concept is one that has been applied in business, and many companies have adopted it by changing from a "just in case" system to a "just in time" system. "Just in case" means that you purchase necessary materials based on a plan that attempts to anticipate future needs. If the plan cannot anticipate future need correctly or if the unforeseen happens, it is possible that there may be too much inventory of one product and too little of another, which has suddenly become popular. Without a mechanism to quickly acquire this popular product, or sell the product it has in inventory, the business loses competitive edge. So here is where the "just in time" concept comes in. "Just in time" means that the company has access to a provider that can provide immediate assistance in obtaining the necessary product, whatever the market may be demanding at the moment. In a sense, the smaller business is "passing the buck" for its "just in case" collection to another larger company that can provide it what it needs when it needs it, in other words, it can provide it "just in time." The idea is that if a large company provides to a number of smaller companies all around the country, or maybe the world, what they need when they need it, any kind of impact for a mistake concerning forecasting the popularity of, and therefore the need for, products would be minimized. This example is just a two layered system. One "just in case" business serving several "just in time" businesses. There can be several layers of "just in case" businesses, each serving the layer below and depending on the layer above for the product. But ultimately, there must be one company at the top of this chain that subscribes to the "just in case" philosophy, or at the very least has direct contact with various manufacturers who can churn up the products at the drop of a hat. Otherwise, the whole system falls flat.

So, let's see how this applies to public libraries. Public libraries, and in particular large public library systems, generally use both "just in case" and "just in time" strategies. And they have been doing so for a very long time. Smaller branches generally stock materials that are used frequently and that they need for immediate customer service. This would be their "just in case" collection. They depend on regional libraries or on a main library for less frequently used materials. This would be "just in time." Likewise, the regionals will also have a split strategy system, with balance between the two shifting in favor of the "just in case" approach. The main library's strategy would be even more shifted toward the "just in case" approach. In a situation like this there are three tiers with varying positions along the "just in time" - "just in case"continuum. Interlibrary loan (ILL) contributes to this as well, since there is a large number of participating libraries in the pool, which increases the likelyhood that an item might be found for a customer. But there is no guarantee, as collection development practices are an individual choices based on local use and not decided in consultation with other library systems nor based on potential need elsewhere. With the Internet, opportunities open up to decrease the "just in case" burden, true, but it is important to note that it is not possible to guarantee availability. Database providers may drop a particular product, or they may go out of business, or may increase prices to a level where subscription costs become prohibitive. Free access databases may suddenly and without notice become fee-based, and, therefore inaccessible. So, when considering "just in case" vs. "just in time," it is important to recognize that the only way to guarantee that something will be available to a library's customers is to have it "just in case." Of course, it is not possible to have this philosophy for everything, so choosing where to stand on the "just in time" - "just in case" continuum will need to be a carefully evaluated decision.

Another "iceberg" he mentions is the reliance on user education. Again, for public libraries there are constraints. Databases are chosen based on ease of use, content, and cost. Another factor is availability for remote access so customers can use them from home. Public libraries offer classes in the use of the computer and databases and provide reference assistance to customers when they come in. Reference librarians at public libraries have gotten very good at knowing how to give quick training to a customer on the use of a database, and are available should the customer need assistance during his/her session. Public libraries have never relied on user education, and so they have, therefore, found ways to adapt to the varying levels of user education among customers. Mr. Anderson states "But if our services can’t be used without training, then it’s the services that need to be fixed—not our patrons." Perhaps this might be an option for academic libraries, where the average customer is literate and has generally good computer skills, such that most services are easy to figure out, but this cannot be taken for granted in public libraries. Most public library customers would rather be told how to use a database and get the information as opposed to the alternative of not having it available because training is necessary. Training customers in a public library is par for the course, another reason why staffing with knowledgeable personnel during all open hours is so important. Eliminating this would be very detremental to public service, and choosing not to subscribe to a database based on the skill levels of customers is unreasonable. First of all, which customers does one consider in making such a determination? The technologically savvy ones or the ones that have no computer experience whatever? There is simply too much variation in customer knowledge and ability that makes considering such a concept sheer nonsense for a public library. A standard of providing quality customer service needs to be the guide, and ease of use is certainly a factor, but so is access to the information.

The third "iceberg" he mentions is the "come to us" model of library service. True that with the Internet more people feel that they can find what they need, and so they may not come to the library. But increasingly I am finding that, particularly when it comes to customers needing difficult to find information, that customers recognize that they need the librarians to help them find the needle in the haystack. He says that libraries need to become aware and acknowledge the changes that are ocurring in the marketplace they serve, and find ways to adapt to them. This is very true. However, academic libraries and public libraries serve fundamentally different marketplaces to begin with, and the increase of the availability and ease of use of technology and the Internet does not make these marketplaces any similar to eachother. Mr. Anderson writes from the point of view of an academic library. In fact, for public libraries the challenge is quite different, and relative to its own prior customer use pattern the public library is increasingly being pulled in several opposing directions of customer need. Public libraries serve customers that run the gammut from functionally illiterate to the highly educated litterati. Likewise relating to technology and computers public libraries serve customers that run the gammut from those who cannot type or use a mouse to those who are practically computer programmers. Public libraries also have customers ranging in age from infants to people in their 90s. Each of these people approach the library with his/her own library need, and good customer service dictates that we strive to satisfy each as best we can with the resources we have. Academic libraries have a considerably more homogeneous customer base in their knowledge, skills, approach, and purpose for using the library than public libraries do, and technology has just made the customer base for public libraries even less homogeneous in those areas still. Public libraries also have different funding issues than do academic libraries or businesses. A successful business can take a percentage of profit and funnel it back into expanding the company. An academic institution can increase fees as its standing and prestige among universities increases. Therefore to a large degree in business and a certain degree with academic institutions good quality product or service can translate into improved financial support for the institution. This is not the case for public libraries. No matter how good quality is a public library in terms such as quality of customer service or availability of materials, this quality does not translate into increased funding, nor can it keep the budget cuts from hitting when they are implemented. Good quality service is certainly something to strive for and to be proud of, and it will increase the good will of the customers, who will hopefully use the library more, but it cannot be counted on to induce an increase in financial support in any significant way. Because of all these fundamental differences between the situations of public and academic libraries, it would therefore be a mistake to assume that the three "icebergs" that he discusses hold the same level of validity for public libraries as they do for academic ones. Therefore, the corresponding action in which they are handled cannot be undertaken by public libraries without further analysis that specifically applies to public libraries.