I just started doing reference by IM, in this cooperative, and it’s exhausting! I couldn’t imagine doing anything else at the same time; I’d be forced to be rude to everyone.

I applaud the effort and intelligence that Meredith used in setting up an IM reference service, and I can certainly understand the frustration involved in trying to service clients in person and virtually with a limited staff. Adding new services involves making hard choices, and perhaps even limiting the traditional services, if the new services involve more customers/clients/patrons.

That being said, I still believe that it is very poor customer service to multitask at a reference desk in such a way as to make someone who is standing at the reference desk wait while the person staffing the desk helps virtual clients. Even though I accept the sincerity of her commitment to VR patrons, if I were standing in front of Meredith at the reference desk at her library, waiting while she helped a VR patron, I would not be sympathetic to her plight–I would be very unhappy.

To suggest that VR patrons must be subordinate to in-person patrons or that VR patrons must stand in a virtual queue behind a potentially smaller number of in-person patrons is to ignore incredibly large changes in our field. And, sticking our head in the sand is no way to address the “Whither Virtual Reference?” dilemma.

As some people have noted, there can never be a “one-size-fits-all” solution to this problem. Libraries are inherently different due to various sizes, population-bases, funding-formulas, and types. However, I don’t think we should shift away from our unified ideal that patron service is tantamount to the profession. If this means altering reference desk staff hours or locations in order to accommodate VR patrons, or if it means hiring LIS students to “man” a VR desk, then so be it.

I hate to end a comment in this fashion because I haven’t offered a concrete solution to the problem, but I do want to reinforce the fact that subordinating one group of patrons to another is a disservice to all patrons. Virtual reference and virtual reference patrons are here to stay. My VR patron deserves and receives the same level of quality service as my in-person patron, and I will not allow one or the other to wait an egregiously long time for help. We owe it to VR patrons to treat them no different from our in-person constituents, as well as to quantify our service to them through reliable metrics.

You just play it by ear, as you would if you were taking a phone call.

Ideally the situation wouldn’t arise!

I hope that this message reaches “Jill” and other librarians like her.

Scot Colford
Web Services Manager
Boston Public Library

Anyway, I can tell you the policy on service priorities at the last two public libraries I’ve worked at (both Circulation and Reference): In person questions come first, then IM, then phone, then email. If you are alone at the service desk you may assist someone via IM, phone or email – however, if someone comes to the desk you must pause or end the conversation (or transfer the call to off desk support).

Both libraries try to maintain off desk staff to answer phones, IM and email but this is not always possible. Staff also have a time limit as to how long they can work on a reference question.

The logic for these priorities (as per management) is: lines of people waiting are not desired nor is one or two people waiting forever at a desk – both do not look good to other patrons and have a markedly increased chance of causing anger or violence in the people waiting (I have experienced this violence myself). In addition, phone, IM and email questions may not be from tax payers. While the ideal is to serve everyone who has an interest in our library – our commitment is to our tax payers.

It made me think that maybe my assumptions about what is good customer service need an update. I *always* thought service with a smile that exceeds the customer’s expectations and gives them three other delightful things to take home was the optimum.

Now I wonder whether there is a generation that get really irritated when they see a chatty, nice friendly librarian talking to a queue of people at the reference desk – someone that they *know* will not prioritise their question via IM and will possibly want to do more than just “give me the information dammit”.

Of course, I couldn’t find the article I read,and I’m not expressing it as well as it did – but food for thought, none-the-less.

You privilege IM questions over email because it’s obvious *to you* that someone asking a question over email doesn’t expect an answer within 5 minutes. You don’t absolutely know that this is the case, but it’s a pretty good assumption because you’re dealing with students.

The question is whether it’s a good or bad assumption that someone asking a question over IM is familiar with a culture of online multitasking. Generally speaking, the answer to this depends on your user community. Specifically, it depends on the individual interaction that you may or may not interrupt, should someone come to the desk.