I will admit that I used to be pretty down on virtual reference. When the notion that librarians could get on board with unsolicited virtual conversation first started, the grandiose nature of the uptake—punctuated by conferences, scholarly articles, and prolonged navel-gazing discussion of this supposed paradigm shift—made one think that librarians had invented online chat.

As with most things of this nature, a cottage industry emerged to support the library clamor for virtual reference (I know some vendors really hate it when I refer to their bread and butter as a cottage industry, but, well . . . tough). There are many solutions out there—Velaro, QuestionPoint, Tutor.com (more emphasis on the tutoring services these days, it appears), Docutek (a SirsiDynix company with emphasis on lots of other stuff), and probably a dozen more I don't know about that are free to add themselves to comments on this post.

But now, rather than pretending to have invented chat, some libraries are reverse-engineering the best parts of the products that are out there. For instance, at MPOW, we found that co-browsing wasn't really the greatest thing since sliced bread. In my opinion, the need to co-browse is a mark of a badly organized website. That is, if you have to walk someone through "how do I find articles?" then there is something more deeply wrong with your website than a failure to offer good virtual reference.

Why not simply IM? It's not necessarily an offering that is mutually exclusive from virtual reference services, but it can be cheap (even $0) at startup, and popular. Several libraries, including mine, are offering IM service via multiple protocols—AIM, MSN, Google, etc. Others are taking things one step further by embedding the Meebo widget right into the "contact us" portion of the website. Here's a list of libraries doing that.

Our profession has been talking a lot lately about centralization of cataloging efforts, digital library efforts, and even IT services. In retrospect, the conversation about centralized reference services was a bit premature, but a new distributed—but as yet unmanaged—infrastructure seems to be emerging. (Perhaps a new cottage industry opportunity?)

I have to admit that there's a part of me that would love to sit down for an hour and just ask random questions about these things. If thousands of us could do it all at the same time, it would be great way to test the scale of virtual reference support. I love reference librarians because I've never met one who could resist even the most esoteric question.

What was the GDP of Paraguay in 1994 anyway? I'm gonna go play.

Every once in a while, I read something that just grabs me by the throat. If I'm lucky, it stimulates my thinking, makes me laugh, and prompts me to actually do something.

I recently had such an experience when my boss forwarded a reprint of an article by Maurice Line, whom I am now ashamed to admit I had never heard of. He worked for the British Library and was a consultant before he retired in 2005. "Librarianship as it is practiced: a failure of intellect, imagination and initiative” was reprinted in Interlending & Document Supply (33/2, 2005, pp. 109-113).

He paints a somewhat sorry state for libraries in terms that we can probably all relate to.

"Trying to hold on to unused publications that libraries no longer have room to house, having theological arguments about the contents of catalogue records, and indulging in the numerous other irrelevant, inappropriate or trivial activities of which librarians are so fond, with their unerring eye for the inessential."

OK. So nothing real surprising there, but I was saving the punchline. This reprinted article is from an address that Line gave in 1983. Since I got it, I've read the article at least three times. I am moderately fixated.

I've been to two speaking sessions since I read it, and it has become the lens with which I have viewed all discussion—in both positive and negative ways. Negative, because it raises my blood pressure when someone says we are at some sort of turning point. Line seems like a prescient scholar, but very few can telegraph a problem 25 years ahead of time. It makes me want to scream: "The sky isn't falling, people, it has already fallen."

"It is criminal to stand by rigid cataloguing codes (even if they were soundly based) if this means the existence and even growth of a backlog of books awaiting processing. If such a stand is made for long enough, it may well prove to be 'Cutter’s last stand'." —Maurice Line

On the other hand, Line's poignant criticism gives me hope because I think we are the midst of a library era of imagination and initiative led by a cadre of intelligent librarians and technologists. To end with Line's own words, "We have nothing to lose but our mental laziness, our spiritual dullness, our introspection and our inhibitions."

I will make no apologies, for what is a blog if not self-promotion?

Innovate or die?
Many of you might have already heard that I am moderating a debate at ALA Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., titled "The Ultimate Debate." For the record, I didn't give it that name. In fact, I am a even a substitute moderator for the event, doing a good turn for my overbooked and much more unflappable colleague Roy Tennant.

I don't particularly like superlatives (it comes from reading a lot of press releases)—where does one go from "Ultimate"? Oh well. But I do like this panel and I love the topic, so I hope you will join me and the debaters—Karen Schneider, Joe Janes, and Stephen Abram—as we discuss "Do Libraries Innovate." For pre-debate rabble-rousing, see the LITA-L list archives!

"The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate"
Saturday, June 23, 2007 ~ 1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m.
Renaissance Mayflower (MAY) Grand Ballroom

Is there a vendor in the house?
On Sunday at ALA, Marshall Breeding and I will take to the riser with a group of technologists from some of your favorite vendors. Unlike some other panels, we have asked the CEOs to stay away and send their CTOs, technologists, and product specialists for a more technical discussion about the state of library automation and a look toward the future. The panel is co-hosted by American Libraries and the Exhibits Round Table and will take place on the LIVE! @ your library Reading Stage in the Exhibit Hall.

This group is not meant to be exclusive, but was kept to a relatively small number so that it would be a good session. It's not a vendor bashing, but expect some hard and direct questions! Here's the panel:

Oren Beit-Arie, Ex Libris
Jabe Bloom, TLC
Taco Ekkel, Medialab
Betsy Graham, Innovative Interfaces
Robin Murray, OCLC
Berit Nelson, SirsiDynix
Rob Styles, Talis

This is the first of what I hope might be an annual event. So come one, and come all.

"Speaking Technically: A Conversation about Cutting-Edge Library Automation and Technology"
Sunday, June 24, 2007 ~ 10:30 a.m.–noon
Exhibit Hall ~ LIVE! @ your library Reading Stage

This is the third and final installment of "What's Next" for the library automation marketplace. Time to review: Major consolidation of the library automation market, the emergence of viable open source software solutions and new business models for supporting them, and a somewhat rancorous and impatient customer base that fears that profit and efficiency have out-gunned innovation and service. This is the making for a dangerous cocktail. What's a vendor to do? What's a library to do?

The Prod
IMHO, I suspect that most libraries are going to sit tight. As have been mentioned many times, the pain and expense of moving systems is in the move itself. This gives vendors a little time (a little time) to breathe and think. If you want to make an organization move, you have to use more carrots and fewer sticks. So far, I see mostly sticks.

Some vendors, including the open source providers, will still be moving quickly to capitalize on discontent, and they will likely reap some rewards from that. Some libraries will want to take some risks, make a statement, or just try something new. Witness: University of Washington and WorldCat Local, British Columbia and Evergreen, the eXtensible Catalog project led by the University of Rochester, and PennTags.

Business Is Business
Back to consolidation and a dirty truth that no one ever wants to talk about: Most humans have an instinctive self-preservation reaction to change. The mergers and product announcements instill selfish reaction—"How will this affect me?" How do you think it feels to be working for a vendor when this happens? Dozens of people have lost their jobs in the last several months. And there will be more. We can be disappointed about a development opportunity missed, another path trod down a dead end, and time wasted, but at least most of us are not looking for new jobs in a shrinking market.

Ken Chad, a colleague who has been around the ILS (or LMS, as they say in the UK) block a time or two, has been writing and commenting on equity ownership in the marketplace. He has also asked the question of why equity firms are interested in a market that is not that rich.

So why would these underperforming companies be of interest to, for example, private equity investors who will need a good short-term return on their investment? Well precisely because they are underperforming there is scope for cost savings through product rationalisation and staff reductions especially when a merger takes place.

–Ken Chad, CILIP Gazette, March 2007

It has been suggested to me, on occasion, that ownership does not matter. I don't believe this. Though it's true that equity ownership in this space is nothing new, I think who owns your vendor is important. I also do not mean to lump all equity firms together in one pile, just as I would not talk about two founder-owned CEOs interchangeably (despite the fact that I think these folks share several characteristics...but that is a topic for another day). I only mean to say that ownership structure and motivation are important factors in assessing directions for libraries.

Private equity firms will no doubt add to a company's efficiency and (perhaps) profitability (keeping in mind that some of "efficiency" is a euphemism for "downsizing"). Other privately held companies will be competing with those that are cost cutting and still providing competitive product. Will any of these companies innovate? Can they afford to? Someone will ask....do we need them to?

My answer to that last question remains a firm "yes." Not every library is going to embrace open source or try to build something on their own. Some still want a "library-in-a-box" and not a platform that supports openness, modularity, and integration with 2nd-tier products and services. On the other hand, a lot of libraries want all of those things. I think the chips will go to the company that can do both. I don't think either the open source side or the proprietary side are there yet.

Who will fund research and development in this new era? If we're already paying a vendor, how much of that money is going into R&D and how much into operations? Is this new era one of continued co-dependence or co-development? If it's the latter, how do we make sure that we are asking for the right things?

No Sitting on Hands
The challenge for libraries is realizing that perfect is the enemy of good. We will have to take the risks that matter. We will have to formulate exit strategies for IT solutions, or embrace decisions to stay the course. I myself have to tear down the poster on my wall that reads: "Indecision is the key to flexibility."