I’ve found it interesting how some vendors are vilified (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) while others get a free pass — to the point where we no longer even think of them as vendors. Open source vendor? You’re cool. Vendor who blogs and gives talks about 2.0 stuff (a la Paul Miller, Stephen Abram and Tim Spalding)? You’re cool too. Product manager, marketing dude or executive at a company like Ex Libris or EBSCO or Elsevier? Not so much. And why is that? They’re all trying to sell something to libraries, right? They all want to make money from us. But some of these people are seen as being good and having our best interests at heart while others of them are seen as being out to screw us.

Once upon a time, I was asked to speak on a panel. So was Tim Spalding. Because I was a member of this organization, I was not paid and had to pay for my travel to get to the conference. Tim got paid to come and be a part of this panel, in which he spoke about his product, LibraryThing. I mentioned it to the organizers because I thought it was odd that a vendor get paid for the opportunity to drum up free publicity for his product. The organizer said that she really hadn’t thought of Tim as a vendor. Interesting. Is Tim an awesome guy who most of us think a great deal of? Certainly. Is he a very entertaining speaker? Without question. Does he sell stuff to libraries? Yes. Does he sometimes exhibit at conferences? Yes. Does that make him a vendor? I’d say so!

And that’s not to say that vendors are bad. Most aren’t. But I really take issue with the way our profession tends to idealize some types of vendors and vilify others. I think a lot of people have started to see this black-and-white thinking as problematic in light of the whole LibLime Koha fork thing. Because suddenly you have this open source company — a company that is supposed to be good and out to benefit the larger open source community — doing something that benefits them and their customers at the expense of the community. But weren’t we just hoisting the LibLime folks on our shoulders last year? Weren’t many of us (me included) promoting them and weren’t we excited when we saw their client list growing and growing and growing? (Many of us may still be happy to see their client list grow as it’s a sign that the market share of open source software in libraries is growing.)

Folks at OCLC definitely used to get a pass in the same way the open source folks did, though that seems to be changing as public perception shifts towards viewing them as a vendor that wants to gobble up and control our data (which is also a simplification). It reminds me a lot of how some librarians felt about Google — how they went from loving Google to feeling totally betrayed by them. I guess my take is that if someone makes their money off a library without working in it, they are a vendor. Consultants are vendors. People who sell products are vendors. People who sell services, like maintaining open source systems, are vendors. And all of them will put the good of their company over the good of libraries. That doesn’t make them evil — it makes them good businesspeople.

And again, with the Stephen Abram thing. I didn’t like his paper because it lacked a level of quality and polish that I would expect from Stephen and a company like SirsiDynix. It was about at the level of professionalism of a poorly-researched blog post (hey, like this!). I take issue with anything that doesn’t cite where its information is coming from and uses phrases like “some companies”, “some software” “some argue.” There were lots of factual inaccuracies and opinion masquerading as fact (”Proprietary software has more features. Period. Proprietary software is much more user-friendly”). And what was up with the completely pointless chart on page 4? It was just an awful piece. The fact is, there are a lot of good arguments against open source and against choosing an open source ILS, but Stephen’s lack of good hard facts and citations made any point he made seem less credible.

Part of me started to wonder on Friday if someone from an open source company wrote a similar screed against proprietary systems, would it garner the same reaction from the Twittersphere/blogosphere? And I hate to say it, but I think the answer is no. If someone from Equinox went off on the weaknesses of proprietary systems in a way that was badly researched and perhaps contained some hyperbole, many folks would probably nod their head and say, “yeah, they do suck.” Some of us might send the link to our colleagues, writing that it contains a great distillation of why open source is the better option for the ILS. I’m not saying this to damn anyone or shame anyone, because I know I do it too sometimes without even thinking about the double-standard.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’ve been so sleep-deprived lately that I’ve been seeing everything through whatever the opposite of rose-tinted glasses are (green?). I guess what I’m trying to say is that we really can’t look at things as being so black and white. We can’t say open source=good, proprietary=bad. It’s not that simple. Stephen Abram is not a bad person because he wrote a crappy “position paper. OCLC isn’t necessarily evil. Open source vendors aren’t necessarily good. We shouldn’t assume that a vendor is out to take us to the cleaners and steal all our data, but neither should we assume that a vendor has our best interests at heart (no matter how cool they or their representatives are). Things are really, really gray, and require a much more critical eye than we sometimes have by default.

Updated: I just read Cindi Trainor’s The Sacred Cows of Library Technologists, which I think dovetails so nicely with my points and is far, far more eloquently written. Check it out!

Wayne Bivens-Tatum recently wrote a very interesting post questioning who should be teaching library instruction — librarians or faculty. This is an issue that I’ve been thinking about a great deal and while I don’t think an answer exists for every discipline or every school, I thought I’d share my own thinking on it.

We have been working on our report to our accrediting body, NEASC, since the Spring and one of the library goals that was originally written into it was for library instruction to be taught in every English 101 (AKA Freshman comp) class. Last Fall, we taught library instruction to 90% of the EN 101 classes as a result of aggressive marketing to instructors. We thought it a reasonable goal to say that we’d like library instruction to be in 100% of EN 101 courses so that the University would know that every Freshman has certain standard basic information literacy skills. It would create a baseline so that we wouldn’t have to teach the most basic aspects of library research in upper-level classes for the small number of students who didn’t have a library session in EN 101.

While this seemed innocuous enough to me and my colleagues, the English faculty asked us to strike it from the report. They objected 1) to the idea that we are the only ones who can teach information literacy and 2) to any mandate that faculty would have to have a library session as part of their class (which would interfere with academic freedom). We at the library certainly weren’t trying to say that we are the only unit teaching information literacy. Even when librarians do teach a one-shot (or even a few sessions), what students are learning in there is only a very small piece of the information literacy puzzle. The academic freedom issue is trickier and isn’t one that I have a difficult time speaking to. I assume that there must be certain standards, guidelines and requirements that instructors teaching 101 must adhere to already so that students can achieve a basic level of knowledge/skill. We always tailor our instruction sessions to what the instructor has assigned his or her students, so it’s not like anyone would be telling faculty what to teach. It’s the students who suffer because of this lack of standardization since it means that we either have to teach the same things again in upper-level classes or we skip teaching the basics in those classes and students who’d never had library instruction end up lost.

Wayne talks about a new model at Princeton in which the librarians are training the writing instructors to teach library research themselves. I can’t see that flying at many institutions where librarians are seen more as support staff than as fellow instructors with their own area of expertise. I can’t imagine most faculty here being willing to accept training from us on how to teach library resources to their students. But if they were, I certainly would be happy to let go of our instructional role in EN 101 if it meant that all students would get the same preparation.

I don’t think librarians should see the teaching of information literacy as our domain. Some faculty members are teaching information literacy and library research brilliantly in their discipline themselves and that doesn’t threaten me in the least. My Director wants us to be teaching at three levels in every discipline (for example, I teach at the 100, 300, and 400 level in the history program), but I don’t know if that is always necessary. For example, there is a criminal justice research methods class for majors. I do not teach in that class, but they still receive significant information literacy instruction from their professor. On the other hand, I have worked with a class of Junior psychology majors who had never used PSYCInfo or PSYCAbstracts. I think we (librarians AND faculty) need to worry less about what is our domain and more about ensuring that students have the skills they need to be successful in their major. It doesn’t matter who teaches it as long as it’s being taught.

But it needs to be taught well. There are some faculty members who are more knowledgeable about the library resources in their area of study than any librarian here. There are other faculty who have never used a database and still tell their students to use the New York Times in microfilm (we’ve had it online for years). The most unfortunate thing is that, in most cases, it’s the people who are very aware of our resources who request library instruction for their classes. Those who are not continue to assign their students to use only print journals and to find things we don’t even have anymore.

I struggle with how to reach those faculty members. When we get a “rogue assignment” we usually email the faculty member to either get clarification, describe the difficulty that their students are having with the assignment, or let them know that something they want their students to do is literally not possible. Sometimes that helps; sometimes we never hear back. I’ve been wanting to offer brown-bag lunch sessions on new resources in specific disciplines in an effort to get faculty up-to-speed with what we have available, but I suspect that the people I most want to reach will not be the ones who show up. I really want to provide outreach to these faculty — either to get them up-to-speed on our resources or to provide instruction in some of their classes — but I’m not sure how to reach them.

While I don’t really feel territorial about information literacy instruction, I do struggle with the knowledge that the library resources are our area of subject expertise. No matter how library-savvy the faculty member, we are always going to be more “up to date” on what we have. A history faculty member who uses our library all the time was surprised to learn in an instruction session the other day that you could create an account in JSTOR and save articles to your account. Faculty I work with frequently comment that they learned something new when I teach to their classes. I don’t know that all of us can teach it better (some of us are piss-poor instructors), but more often than not, we are going to be more knowledgeable about the library resources and their capabilities. This, of course, begs the question of whether deep knowledge of resources or teaching skills are more important, but that’s a question for another day.

Ideally, I’d like to see one of two things happen: 1) a faculty member who is very up-to-date on what is available through the library teaches his or her students about library research and information literacy or 2) a librarian teaches library research and information literacy in close partnership with the faculty member. Because what’s most important is that partnership. When a faculty member gives over sole responsibility for teaching research to the librarian, the students rarely see value in what is being taught. I’ve had faculty leave the room while I’m teaching and the students in those classes always become less engaged as soon as it happens. When the faculty member makes comments throughout the session and stays engaged in what I’m teaching, the students stay engaged, because the faculty member is indicating with his/her behavior that this is valuable and important. Ideally, I’d love to see classes team-taught, but just having the faculty member engaged in the class makes a huge difference for the students.

I must apologize for the twisted path this post has taken — it matches well my own muddled thoughts on the issue. I think so much of what the ideal is for library instruction depends on the university, the discipline, and the individual faculty members a librarian is dealing with. We can’t say “___ is the best way to do library instruction.” Even in the social sciences (my liaison area), I work very closely with one department and in another I’ve only taught one class session in two years. I don’t think there’s a perfect model that will work for every institution/department/class, but I do know that the more that we or academic faculty are territorial about our roles, the more likely it is that students will get very poor library instruction or none at all.

Like Wayne, I’m curious what your thoughts are on who should be teaching library instruction? Do you have similar power struggles at your institution? Do you have great partnerships with faculty in teaching library instruction? I’d love to hear about it. We all learn so much from hearing about the experiences of others.

And just to be totally gratuitous, here’s a picture of my biggest (and most wonderful) distraction from blogging.

I was wondering if you had any advice or links to websites or professional literature that deal with this issue. That issue is: how do libraries deal with the roles and responsibilities of 2.0 technology? Some of it crosses borders and/or job descriptions. Who is in charge or responsible for tweets on twitter, the library marketing director, the reference librarian, the library director, etc. I suspect this is something that we will just have to work out as an organization. I’m just wondering if anyone else has any wisdom they might share in this regard.

My take on this is that there probably isn’t much professional literature on this topic because how the roles and responsibilities are assigned depend very much on organizational size, organizational structure, and who is really interested in doing it. At a library with a very small staff (like the Luria Library at Santa Barbara City College) it may be an interested director who takes responsibility for these 2.0 initiatives. At libraries where the lines between tech and public service are very clearly delineated, it may be the tech folks who are in charge of the Twitter account, whereas, at a library (like mine) where tech librarians do reference shifts and public service librarians are well-trained in library technologies (and every line is extremely blurred), it may be a joint responsibility or the responsibility of the public services librarians. In some libraries (perhaps most?), people have taken this on because they’re simply the ones most into marketing and/or web 2.0 tools. In bigger libraries where there is a marketing director or an outreach librarian or a digital branch manager, that person may be in charge of these initiatives.

But I’m curious, what are your thoughts on this? Especially with regards to 2.0 tools that are created in an effort to reach out to patrons, who should be responsible? What makes the most sense? Should it be the person who has the most contact with the public? The most tech-savvy person? The person with the most authority (the Director)? This is one of those questions that has myriad answers, so I wanted to open it up to see how other libraries handle it (or how you think libraries should handle it).

For years, we’ve used our catalog basically as it came out of the box, but we now have an awesome new Systems Librarian and a Head of Digital Initiatives who are really passionate about making the catalog more usable. I couldn’t be more excited about this. The other day, we met to talk about library annual goals and my colleagues discussed their unit’s goal for improving the catalog. They talked about customizations we as librarians might like to see, but never did they talk about finding out what our users want or need from the catalog or finding out how our users use the catalog. And my colleague who heads this unit is a very user-focused person, but “surveying the population” was not something he was saying in terms of improving the catalog. So, I brought it up, because I worry about us developing something that’s great for librarians and is sucky for the people it’s really there for. A day later, another colleague emailed everyone with some questions about the test catalog and described his preferences for searches. While his questions were certainly valuable, I had to say to myself “who cares how you like to search?” Or how I like to search? Is that how our users like to search? Can we assume that we know that? Yes, include the search options that allow us to do our job, but the catalog should be customized in order to meet the needs of our students and faculty. I think we sometimes get this tunnel vision where we start to think that it’s about us. And it really shouldn’t be, because our library wouldn’t exist without the patrons we’re here to serve. As Jenica said, the libraries aren’t ours. Then neither is the catalog/website/etc.

But even when we do usability studies or surveys, I sometimes wonder if we don’t design them in such a way that we get the results we want to see in the first place. When I did usability testing of our website four years ago, the results brought us to the same conclusions I had come to myself just by looking at it. And I wonder if in some way my own biases impacted the design and results. Maybe, maybe not. But I often get the sense that we’re sometimes doing assessments not to learn something new, but to confirm what we already think we know or how we want things to be. How often are you really surprised by the results of a survey or usability study you’ve done?

I’m happy the students are coming back this week, because it brings us back to reality. It reminds us of why we’re here. We’re here to support the academic work of students and faculty — not to create the coolest tools that only we think are cool or the best catalog for librarians. We so often take for granted that we know what our users want and need or we assume that because an article in Educause says that students are like ___ then our students must be like ___ as well. We need to get, as our University President (a military man) often says, “the ground truth.” We need to build things our users truly want and need and leave our egos and possessiveness and desire to only create something really cool at the door (which so many of us, me included, are guilty of once in a while). Because it’s not about us. It’s about them.

It’s times like this that I’m proud to be a librarian and am especially proud of the amazing generosity and come-togethery-ness (well it should be a word!) of my online friends. Steve Lawson has set up a Library Society of the World Fundraiser to collect money for the Louisville Free Public Library:

I have set up the email LSW.LFPL@google.com and linked it to my PayPal account. I intend to collect money at that address until September 1, at which point I’ll send a check in the name of the Library Society of the World to the LFPL Foundation. You can just send money to that email address using PayPal, or use the button [at Steve's original post]:

If you’d rather send a check, send it to the Library Society of the World Clubhouse, PO Box 7893, Colorado Springs CO 80933. Make the check payable to Steve Lawson.

Don’t worry about how much you can afford to donate. My own contribution will be small-ish, between $20 and $50.

But there are about 300 members of the LSW room on FriendFeed. There are close to 1,000 members of the LSW group on Linkedin. I would like to think we can raise at least $5,000 for LFPL by September 1. That’s only $17 per FriendFeed member, or $5 per Linkedin member.

For this to work, you have to trust me. I promise that every dime that comes through PayPal or check will go to LFPL. (PayPal takes a small cut if your donation is charged to your credit card (rather than your bank account) and if you don’t choose the option to pay those fees yourself, so it’s possible that I won’t get the full amount of your donation. I’ll only be able to donate the money I actually receive after PayPal fees.)

On September 1, I’ll total up what we have raised and send it to the library. If you would rather give money yourself instead of sending it to me, here is the address and phone number given in the Louisville Courier-Journal:

The Library Foundation
Attn: Flood
301 York St.
Louisville, KY 40203
(502) 574-1709

Whether you’re a LSW member or not, please consider finding a way to donate to the library so that they can quickly get up and running again. Even just a few dollars from each reader of this blog would really add up. Greg and colleagues, you’re in my thoughts.

8:30 am – Director called me into her office to let me know that she’d heard back from the office that created the orientation schedule for the cadets. Apparently, we now have 35 minutes and 40 students to split between the library and the museum (last year we had 1 hour and 15 minutes and 20-25 students) since they are giving the Academic Achievement Center a period and a half. Given space constraints, there is no way that 40 students will fit, and given the time constraints, there’s almost nothing we can do. My Director and I agreed that under these circumstances, we’d rather just not do it and would rather just get the students when they come to the library for EN101. Ironically, the civilian tours, which were a disaster last year (every civilian student coming to the library over the course of an hour and a half on no set schedule), are now going to be great, with 8 groups of 20 coming for 40 minutes each. Nice!

8:50 am – Work on clues for the scavenger hunt for the civilians. Walk around the library thinking of tasks for them to do and wrote up new clues.

9:30 am – Worked on instructional goals for FY10. I met with most of the librarians who take part in instruction a few weeks ago and we decided that the two things we’d like to focus most on this year are increasing faculty awareness of library resources and services and improving our own instructional effectiveness through assessment/analysis and peer review. Last year I did so many instruction sessions that I didn’t have time to really focus on instructional program administration, so I am promising myself that I will delegate more to our other instruction librarians.

10:15 am – finally took some psychology books that I’d weeded a few weeks ago down to the cataloger to delete and ordered a new version of a neuropsychology book for which we had the 1976 edition (ouch!).

10:35 am – Looked over new employee orientation since my new employee will be starting in a couple of weeks.

10:50 am – filled out reimbursement paperwork for ALA Annual, which I keep forgetting to do.

11:10 am – pumped and caught up on feeds

11:35 am – started cleaning off my desk. Since I’ve been working so few hours this summer, I’ve been just letting things pile up on my desk and now it looks like a disaster area. Made some headway, but got distracted by pile of LIS journals.

12:30 pm – ate lunch and put many, many journals into my colleagues’ boxes.

1:00 pm – received an email asking for the key to the office I’ve been using to pump breastmilk in (since my office is actually the most fishbowl-iest in the building). Someone in the Academic Achievement Center is taking over that office on Monday and wants to move in tomorrow. That was the final straw for me. Yesterday, my boss had told me that someone was taking over that office on Monday (!) and asked if I’d be ok with going to his office and pumping while he went somewhere else during that time. She also said that they put in an order with facilities to have blinds put on the windows of my office. I said yes, because I didn’t really see another option, but honestly, I wasn’t really ok with it. How uncomfortable to have to ask a stranger to leave his office so that I can pump breastmilk in it. Yuck! The email asking for my key was the final straw that made me realize that no, I can’t do this. It’s been one thing after another since I came back to work. First, no one had a key for the office where I’d be pumping and the glass door had not been covered (though our Office Manager had asked Facilities to do it 2 or 3 months before). Then, I got a guilt trip from someone (not library staff) that I was taking up an office to do this and was asked “well how long are you planning on doing this for?” I can see why so many working women stop breastfeeding when they go to work, because even in a pretty supportive environment like mine, there can be so many barriers, inconveniences, and uncomfortable situations. I had a few moments where I actually felt guilty for inconveniencing people… but then I got over it.

1:45 pm – decided to ask Director if I could just use paper and cover all the windows in my office. She didn’t seem crazy about the idea from an aesthetic sense, but she understands what a difficult situation this has been for me, so she said yes. Good thing too, since apparently, facilities hasn’t even ORDERED the blinds for my office!!! Sigh…

2:00 pm – Cut craft paper and taped up the windows. Finished product is ugly, but it is private.

Friendly, no?

3:00 pm – Answered some emails.

3:30 pm – Pumped in my office for the first time and caught up on RSS feeds.

4:00 pm – Worked some more on clues for scavenger hunt.

4:30 pm – Headed home. Not coming back to work until next Thursday, so this will be it for now!

The one I’m probably most excited about is Chrystie Hill’s long-awaited Inside, Outside and Online which is all about library community-building. This isn’t just about how to build community online, but how libraries can build community using everything in our real-world and virtual-world toolboxes. Chrystie is an expert on community-building and has a very thoughtful and pragmatic perspective, so I’m sure this book is going to be one I’ll use frequently in my own work.

The Accidental Library Marketer is coming out this month and is a topic near and dear to my heart. Because, really, aren’t we all accidental library marketers? I certainly didn’t know in library school how much of my time and energy as a librarian would be devoted to marketing. Kathy Dempsey is a terrific writer and, like the other “Accidental” books, I’m sure this will be full of practical advice that any librarian can use to better market the library, it’s collections and services.

Another book on library marketing, focused more on our net-gen students, is Brian Matthews’ Marketing Today’s Academic Library: A Bold New Approach to Communicating with Students. Brian has incorporated many innovative techniques in reaching out to students at Georgia Tech (and I’m sure he’s doing the same now at UC Santa Barbara — congrats on the new gig, Brian!) and I’m sure the book is full of unique ideas for marketing the library to today’s students.

At a time when I am finding fewer and fewer interesting blog posts to read, when Char Booth writes something on her blog, I know it’s going to be thought-provoking. Char, like Chrystie, had a really pragmatic and thoughtful approach to everything, so I’m always interested in her take on technology and academic library issues. So when I saw that she’d come out with a report on the technology assessment work she’d done at Ohio University, I was really excited. Informing Innovation: Tracking Student Interest in Emerging Library Technologies at Ohio University is doubly awesome because you can actually read it for free online! While assessment isn’t sexy, it’s necessary, and when I read that 50% of ARLs using social software aren’t assessing it in any way (and ARLs are big on assessment), I know we have a problem. Char’s book fills a real void in this area and contains practical ideas for how to do a similar technology assessment at your library.

Another book I found while looking for the URLs for these books is Risk and Entrepreneurship in Libraries: Seizing Opportunities for Change. This is a topic near and dear to my heart and contains some really interesting chapters by librarians who are pushing the innovation envelope. One of particular interest to me (and perhaps you) is Jeffrey Trzeciak’s “McMaster University Libraries 2.0: Transforming Traditional Organizations.” I’m not sure why I hadn’t heard about this book before, but it looks awesome!

All right, y’all! Can you stop writing such interesting books until my son is in kindergarten? Sheesh!

In just the past few weeks, I’ve received two emails from companies whose services I’ve tried out who are now shutting their doors. Another one is changing its focus and will no longer be hosting the very thing I was using it for. Luckily these were tools/services that I’d tried out but wasn’t dependent on for providing services to my patrons. But what if I had been dependent? Would I have been able to move my content easily to another provider? Would I have had to find a way to host the content myself? Or would the content have simply gone up in smoke with no way to ever get it back?

While going with hosted solutions for one’s 2.0 services is cheap or free and is often the only option for a library with a tight budget, it’s not always the prudent way to go. Even if the service is free, the time library staff spend creating content on that service isn’t, and we don’t want all that effort (and content) going down the drain. We often put way too much trust in many of these services, having no backups for the content we’re putting on their servers. One great example of what can happen when you trust a company too much is Ma.gnolia, which was a very popular social bookmarking company that had a catastrophic server failure in January and lost everyone’s data. While they tried to restore the database, they failed, and now they’re going to start from scratch (though I can’t imagine who would trust them with their bookmarks now!). I don’t know if Ma.gnolia allowed people to back up their own bookmarks to their hard drive, but even if they did, I’d wager that a lot of people rarely, if ever, remembered to do it (she writes sheepishly, wondering when the last time was that she backed up her own del.icio.us bookmarks — done!).

My friend Stephen Francoeur created two of the best 2.0 tools for library staff that I’m aware of — an active and useful reference blog and reference wiki. For these tools which he created four years ago or so, he used Blogger and PBWiki. The blog and wiki are vital to their reference staff since they contain so much staff knowledge collected over many years. In his most recent blog post, Stephen describes how he decided that home is the safest place for all that data and how he had to move the blog from Blogger to a locally hosted version of Wordpress MU, and the wiki from PBWiki (now PBWorks) to a locally installed version of Confluence. He discussed how difficult the transition was, especially with the wiki since he had to literally copy and paste the content from the old wiki into the new. Had either of these companies gone bust before they could move that content to a local server, it might possibly have been gone forever. This just highlighted again to me how important it is that we gauge how vital the things we’ve created with these 2.0 tools are to our library (or to us personally if we use them outside of work) and take steps to protect that content or functionality accordingly. If the Google Custom Searches that I’ve created for several subject areas were to disappear, it wouldn’t be a grave tragedy. Were our subject guide wiki to disappear, we’d have lost content that is vital to our students and faculty and took us years to develop. That’s why our subject guide wiki lives on our own server.

We utilize the services of so many of these 2.0 companies because they provide services and space for free. However those services cost someone money, and if they aren’t making enough from pro accounts or ads, then they’re losing money on the bandwidth and server space it costs to run a successful site. Many of these companies lack any sort of a revenue model and while they may be funded by venture capitalists or big companies like Google and Yahoo! now, they may not be forever if they can’t find a way to make money for their benefactors. It scares me how dependent Iranians are on Twitter to get the word out about what the government is doing there when the company is losing money hand over fist. And many of the other big 2.0 companies we know and love are in the same boat.

There’s also the issue of their infrastructure. When I put things on our library’s server, I know that there are daily backups of the content. So if something goes kablooey, I can always roll it back to what it looked like the previous day. Not too bad. But do we know much about the server infrastructure of the companies we’re dependent on? Often we don’t know anything because that information isn’t provided to us. And this can even be a problem when you’re paying a company to run a service for you. Our Voyager ILS installation is hosted by Ex Libris, and a year or two ago they had too high a load on their servers and, as a result, we had a lot of problems with Voyager going down for a few months. It’s important, whether we’re paying or not, that when we’re trusting a mission critical service to a third party we know about their server infrastructure.

Another big issue is when a company decides to suddenly change how it operates, which may leave you high and dry or might at least force you to change the way you operate. A great case in point is PBWiki, now known as PBWorks. I really thought a great deal of PBWiki early on, so much so that I was on their Educational Advisory Board. Then they managed to alienate much of their original fanbase, me included. First they created a new version of their wiki software (PBWiki 2.0) which completely changed the way that authentication into the wiki worked. But you still had the choice of whether or not you wanted to create a 1.0 or 2.0 wiki. And in spite of a huge wave of negative feedback they received about PBWiki 2.0, they not only kept it the way it was, but forced people to switch their original PBWikis to 2.0. Now, they’re called PBWorks and I have no idea if the wikis (or workspaces) still look the same as the 2.0 wiki, because I wouldn’t touch a PBWiki at this point with a 10-foot pole. I don’t like companies that don’t listen to their users.

I don’t have a good solution for what libraries should do if they can’t afford to host their own content (or if the only technology providing that functionality is externally hosted), but I do think it’s critical that we should think critically about these companies with which we’re entrusting our content and whether our content is safe enough relative to its value. While your Twitter posts may not be super-valuable to you later on, your del.icio.us bookmarks or blog posts probably are. If your content is important to your library, consider whether or not you think that service that’s hosting your content is stable. Who hosts your content? A large, stable company that is making enough to at least cover its expenses, a start-up with venture funding and no revenue model, or some individual for whom this service is a hobby (though they hope to sell it to Google one day — and btw, it’s scary that “selling to Google” seems to have become a revenue model in itself)? Can you easily back up that content? Can you easily move it to another service? And do other services exist that provide the same or similar functionality? And equally important, what claims do these companies make on your content (always read their Terms of Service!). We need to consider all these things because I’d hate to see the hard work of librarians go up in smoke because it didn’t occur to them that these free 2.0 services might not be here forever.

Have any of you had disasters with hosted services? Have you moved your stuff from a hosted service to your own server and why? What do you consider before you put content on some third party’s servers? Do you feel like the your content is safe in all of the 2.0 services you use online?

My little guy is sick of beating up the animals hanging from his activity gym and seems to want some cuddle time now. Talk amongst yourselves.

I’ve known about this for almost a year as my library had its links shut off because we didn’t want to pay to be able to link to HBR in our online classes. Fortunately there weren’t any links to HBR in the course management system when our links were shut off, so it didn’t have any real impact on us. I’d assume that we were approached by Harvard because our online programs spend quite a bit of money on case studies from Harvard Business School Press, since we’re certainly not a big fish otherwise. When I was told by our rep about the new service where we could pay to link to HBR articles in EBSCO, I’d had no idea that we had previously been unable to link to them in the first place (how many of us have access to our contracts with our vendors?). The links to HBR articles are available in the same way as links to any other article in the Business Source products. If there’s a persistent link in the database to an article that a professor wants to use for their class, they’re going to use it. And apparently, I’m not the only one who was unaware of this.

These are the current use restrictions, which have changed since my school signed an agreement with EBSCO:

“Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009 Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content available through such means. For rates and permission, contact permissions@harvardbusiness.org.”

One has to wonder what “any other means of incorporating the content into course resources” means. Does that mean one can’t tell students in a class to access a HBR article from Business Source Premier without providing a link? Absurd!

Personally, I find the whole thing really sleazy. We are already paying to access the content from Harvard Business Review in the EBSCO database, just like every other journal in there. We link to other journals in EBSCO databases in our course management system without incident. Why not this one? Why we would need to essentially double-pay just to have a direct link to the content? And, as Paul also asks, how does EBSCO know that a school is using links to HBR content in a course management system or e-reserve?

I guess HBSP can make whatever rules they want with regards to their content, since they’re big and basically essential to any MBA program. But I’m curious — are any of your libraries actually paying HBSP to be able to create permalinks? And have any of you had your EBSCO permalinks to HBR shut off because you wouldn’t pay?

During our childbirth class – which was sponsored by the hospital where I was going to be giving birth – we were told by our childbirth educator that circumcisions at the hospital cost approximately $500. As we were told this by a professional representing the hospital, we had no reason to believe it was not true.

After our son’s circumcision, we first received a bill for $423, which represented the pediatrician’s charge. This seemed a reasonable amount for her skilled services. Shortly thereafter, we received a bill from the hospital for $2150.80. The surgical procedure itself was billed out at $1907.67 This minor procedure required a local anesthetic and took 5 minutes, after which we spent 30 minutes alone with Reed before the nurse checked our son out and let us leave. I couldn’t fathom why it would be so expensive and assumed it must be a mistake. So last Monday, I marched over to the hospital to get the bill straightened out.

When I spoke to staff in the billing department (including their supervisor) I was told that indeed this was the charge for infant circumcision and that the charge was designed to match what other hospitals in the region charge. The supervisor said that it sounded awfully high, but that was the right price and was actually less than our major University hospital in the area. He offered to give me a 20% discount if I paid it in full right away. I said I wasn’t going to pay it period because I thought the price was absurd. I also contacted the billing departments at three hospitals in our area and found that what they’d claimed was far from the case. All of them charged significantly less for a circumcision and their charges included the physician’s fees. Including the physician’s fee, we were charged $2573.80, of which 16% was for the physician. I can’t imagine what services or facilities were provided by the hospital for this particular procedure that would warrant its fees being so much higher than that of the board certified physician.

So, armed with this information, I spoke again to that supervisor in Patient Financial Services, who said it was out of his hands since he has nothing to do with pricing, but that he would let staff in the relevant department know what I found. His response sounded rather noncommittal, so I emailed the CEO and CFO with my story. The CEO emailed back and wrote that the price sounded very high to her too and that they were looking into it and would get back to me ASAP. The next day, I received an email stating that yes, there had been an error and they’d been charging parents quadruple the price for a circumcision since January 1st. (Scary to think of how many may have made the decision not to circumcise their child solely based on the erroneous price they were quoted.) She said my bill would be adjusted and they’d be reimbursing all others who’d paid the incorrect fee almost $1500. This is when I did my happy dance around my office.

The CEO said she was grateful for my spotting this error and told me to stop by her office sometime for a free lunch voucher. This is what I asked her for instead:

Rather than a free lunch, what I’d really like is to see the folks in your financial services department be/feel empowered to question things. They are the first and often last stop when people have issues with their bill, and if they do not feel empowered to question what they see on their computer screen, patients will not receive the best service. Many patients would have been stopped in their tracks by the financial services staff’s insistence that this was the right price and would not have called other hospitals, especially when I was offered a 20% discount if I paid the bill immediately. I once worked in a public library where we were told that the system is always right; that patrons who claim they returned books that show as still being out are lying or wrong. However, this informal policy disregarded the fact that the library staff were as human as the patrons and sometimes made mistakes. Some of my colleagues wouldn’t even check to see if a book that a patron claimed to have returned was on the shelf; they’d just insist that the patron had to pay for it. I sometimes would find books on the shelf that patrons had been billed for, so I always operated under the assumption that the customer was right until proven otherwise. I think it’s the right way to operate any organization, even Patient Financial Services in a hospital. And sometimes it takes an error like this to remind staff that the computer isn’t always right.

I think it’s something we in libraries should remember. We must ensure that people at all levels in our organizations feel empowered to ask questions and advocate for the good of our patrons/customers. Patrons shouldn’t always have to go to the head honcho to get their issues resolved, because so many will give up after the first roadblock and will simply never use the library again. Hospitals often have an ombudsman who investigates and advocates on behalf of patients. Since that doesn’t exist in our profession, we need all of our front line staff to take on that role rather than blindly reciting policy to our patrons.