Rural Libraries: Good (if often isolated) neighbors€¦ · Web viewThis, in combination with a changing global market for softwoods, has left most of Montana’s lumber-oriented

MONTANA’S LIBRARIES: GOOD NEIGHBORSA pre-planning document and white paper1: A case study in rural librariesBruce Newell, DirectorMontana Library Network, Montana State Library [email protected]

1,000 WORD SUMMARY

Montana is a rural state. While our 745 libraries’ needs are similar to those of larger urban libraries’, it is our distances between libraries that presents a constraint and challenge and which sets us apart.

Montana’s librarians work together to an astounding degree. We may not be rich but we are willing to roll up our sleeves and help each other build barns and mend fences. Most Montana librarians realize that we truly are all in this together. “We are only as strong as our weakest library2.” Librarians reap rewards by working together, and our customers are best served by a library community that works cooperatively.

Tax dollars and tuition payments flow from paychecks to schools and colleges. College grads settle down and have children, who in turn become students. Students use their school, community, and (if one’s available) local college libraries. Businesses are incubated in Montana libraries, and when successful, pay taxes and salaries. Parents-to-be learn about raising kids, and aging baby boomers learn about the aches of growing older. There is an ecology of libraries and library services linking Glendive to Troy, and Missoula to Plentywood. Montana libraries are like a big sticky bowl of spaghetti; no single noodle can be extracted without wiggling all others. Our libraries are bound together by shared missions, tools and processes, and especially by our users. Just like there are no throw-away Montana communities, there are no throw-away Montana libraries.

Montana libraries work together:

Participating in a statewide contract with OCLC for cataloging and resource sharing services, and have done so since 2000

Sharing a Montana union catalog, a statewide listing of materials in our libraries, using OCLC’s FirstSearch group catalog product

Encouraging in-state resource sharing with interlibrary loan reimbursement 134 libraries share six group catalogs, many spanning the state Sharing users; a growing list of libraries share the Montana Shared Catalog

and treat each-others’ customers as their own Twenty-six libraries work cooperatively to provide online reference services Planning together, often led by the multi-type Montana State Library

Networking Task Force Working together as the Montana Library Network in its various guises

1 This was written, in part, with contributions from the Montana State Library Networking Task Force (NTF), a statewide, multitype advisory body reporting to the State Librarian? and the MSL Library Development staff?. We met in a late January 2005 planning session led by Alane Wilson, co-author of OCLC’s 2003 Environmental Scan. This paper could not have been written without the help of all in attendance, and particularly without Alane’s very able facilitation and guidance. Eventually, Montana librarians, library customers, and the State Library Commission will contribute to a process that turns these preliminary discussions into a capital “P” Plan.2 Quoted from Missoula Public Library’s former Director Bette Ammon, newly departed to direct the Coeur d'Alene (Idaho) Public Library.Rural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

1

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/


We live in an era of change. We believe our communities’ vitality depends upon the local availability of quality library materials and services, but realize our relevance to our customers is increasingly questioned in light of Google, Yahoo, and the Web in general.

Our larger communities are, by in large, holding their own or thriving, while our smaller communities are often shrinking. Montana libraries are often severely under-funded, ranking 45th nationally for per capita public library expenditures. Our librarians have big hearts and work incredibly hard, but as a group fall short on formal training; our public libraries rank 49th nationally for librarians holding a Masters degree.

Many Montana libraries live with significant threats to our continued existence, while enjoying incredible and profuse opportunities to provide our users with the libraries they want and need. To stay relevant we must adopt a customer-centric values system that measures our successes against our customers’ successes, not a static model of ‘good’ librarianship.

While good library services begin at home, libraries work most effectively and efficiently when they work together towards customer-centric goals. Few libraries have all the stuff and staff they need to keep their customers satisfied. With the Internet, collaboration isn’t dependent upon physical proximity; rather it’s sustained by perceived mutual benefit and a growing collaborative ethos.

Here are some of our opportunities, individually and collaboratively, to further improve library services in Montana:

Plan to put our customers first o Provide our customers with convenient access to quality library

content and services o Add value to data and information for our users by turning it into

knowledge o Increasingly provide every library user with personalized serviceo Manage our libraries for individual users, more like a subscription

service than like a warehouseo Share customers; treat all Montanans as if they are our own customers

Look outside our library world for promising technologies and practiceso Offer customers the option of self-service o Rethink how our customers get e-content and materials

Weave the Web into our libraries and our libraries into the Webo Implement standards-based solutions o Build local infrastructure

Communicate clearly and effectively o With our users, among our staff, and with our other-library colleagues

and partnerso Celebrate our and our partners’ triumphs

Rethink our workflows for both cost and efficiencyRural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


2



o Measure our effectiveness in light of how we serve our customers’ needs

Hire and retain trained and qualified staffso Ensure Montana librarians have ample opportunities for quality,

relevant learning

Fund libraries adequately o Money alone won’t solve our problems, but we can’t move forward

without it

This paper reflects how I think about rural libraries. I didn’t come to these conclusions on my own. I thank my colleagues both here and beyond Montana’s borders for sharing their thoughts with me. In particular I thank my co-workers at the Montana State Library, the Networking Task Force, and Alane Wilson and Pam Bailey from OCLC for their insights. For all my colleagues efforts to set me straight, these opinions are mine, as are any errors.

Under all these words are four basic thoughts:

Libraries are successful to the extent our customers are successful Libraries must collaborate Libraries, if successful, will cost their communities more, not less; but will

increase their value Our users are worth it

Let’s talk about what our customers want their libraries to become, come to an agreement about how we’re going to get from here to there, and then, working together, realize our customers’ dreams.

Rural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


3



INTRODUCTION: WHAT SMALL, RURAL, WESTERN LIBRARIANS WANT

Montana’s librarians want what all librarians want3 —

We want to be valued by our users, for who we are and why we are. We want to be our community’s center, be this community a school, university, business, government agency, non-profit organization, or a town. We want to valued by our user community, seen as a premier source for quality knowledge content and services. We want to be almost too busy, highly in demand, just on the bright side of hectic without feeling stretched beyond our breaking points.

We want our collections (print and electronic) to mirror and meet our community’s needs. We want our services to be timely, relevant, efficiently provided, and effective. Judge us by outcomes—do we connect users to content and services in a fashion that they find beneficial and essential?

We want to be extraordinarily good at what we do, judged by how much good we do for our users. We want to thrive on change, to be able to adapt to change gracefully and on time. We want lauds when we do something especially wonderful. We want, day by day, to work alongside other amazing librarians.

Finally, we want to work cheek-to-jowl with other libraries and other partners, satisfying our communities’ needs. We want collaboration to be the tide that raises all our libraries and their users.

Changing Values

The May 2005 Fast Company magazine’s cover story is “Change or Die”. The article relates that nine out of ten heart-bypass patients, given the choice of changing life-styles or risking imminent death, are unable to change. The article continues, “No wonder changing people’s behavior is the toughest challenge in business.” John Kotter is quoted on staying relevant and competitive: “The central issue is never strategy, structure, culture or systems. The core of the matter is always about changing the behavior of people… Behavior change happens mostly by speaking to people’s feelings.”

Alan Deutschman, the article’s author, disputes five myths about changing behavior. He suggests that :

Crisis is not the most powerful impetus for change Change is not motivated by fear; it is brought about by positive visions of the

future Facts don’t encourage change and change is not totally rational; an emotional

appeal and changing our view of the world better encourages change Radical, not gradual, change is often easier, because it often brings with it

immediate benefits Old dogs can learn new tricks; humans come ‘pre-wired’ to change and adapt

3? Distilled from a ‘preferred future’ list developed by the Montana State Library Networking Task Force, January 2005, as edited by OCLC’s Alane Wilson. See Attachment One: Preferred Future



4



Like it or not, for our users, convenience almost always trumps quality; our job is to make quality convenient. Libraries are usually not the first place their users’ look for information; we’re way down the list for most of our communities. We need to become more user-centric, service-oriented, more efficient, and we must re-imagine ourselves as one player among many in the information ecology. Libraries need to fundamentally change our value systems to reflect current realities. Can we change, or will we die?

Our rural libraries face the same realities as do their urban cousins. The world has changed around us all. We are part of this changing world, caught up in change just like everyone and everything else. The Coalition for Networked Information’s Clifford Lynch writes4

“…libraries exist within [not separate from, rather part of] a complex and continuously-evolving knowledge ecosystem that encompasses the lifecycle of information and knowledge from creation through dissemination and curation to use.”

The Web has tied our libraries' fates together and has placed our users squarely in the driver's seat. Libraries are not the first place many of our users turn for ‘good stuff’. Our users value convenience over quality—lusting after the storied single click which effortlessly accesses everything. We scoff at their naiveté but secretly share their desire. Meanwhile Google adds another room to their growing content castle.

Google by itself has (arguably) changed libraries’ world as much as ever did Melville Dewey. Our customers look first to the Web for ready reference and content. Libraries are no longer #1 on the ready reference charts for most of our users. There is an increasing amount of library-like quality (or at least convenient) content and services on the Web.

At our heart, libraries are educational institutions, connecting users with knowledge objects and services. We are distinct enterprises—different from newspapers, bookstores, publishers, or market-research firms, distinguished by this connection process. It is noteworthy that most of our customers turn to a library only after they've looked elsewhere for information.

Rural Western libraries, in particular smaller libraries in Montana, have two aspects that make them different from rural libraries in more densely populated regions:

Many small rural libraries serve communities with economies and populations either stagnant or in decline. Libraries from these communities are often impoverished, and can only offer their customers a relatively limited set of materials and services.

The communities they serve are often quite isolated. Among other things, this means that the librarians in small rural western libraries work alone, without co-workers. Their colleagues are often miles away. Rural librarians in the US Midwest, for instance, can drive less than a half an hour to share a cup of coffee with their colleagues. In Montana and much of the rural West, a shared cup of joe comes only after an hour or hour-and-a-half drive.

4 “Reflections Towards the Development of a “Post-DL” Research Agenda”, drafted June 10, 2003 http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~dlwkshop/paper_lynch.html



5


http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~dlwkshop/paper_lynch.html




6



Montana in a nutshell5

“We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.”Preamble to Montana’s Constitution, amended in 1972

Montana is a big, wide-open state; only Alaska, California, and Texas have more square miles. West of the Rockies is forested and mountainous, beribboned with fast-flowing rivers and crashing cascades coursing toward the Columbia. Central Montana boasts proud mountain ranges, wide valleys, sprawling plains, and rivers flowing leisurely into the Missouri. Eastern Montana features the Northern Plains, punctuated by rumpled coulees, hills, badlands, and at night, a rich blanket of stars.

Montana is the home of the Blackfeet, Crow, Salish, Kootenai, Gros Ventre, Assiniboine, Sioux, Little Shell Chippewa, Northern Cheyenne, and the Chippewa-Cree. Montana is almost 90% white, but includes 6% American Indian residents. In Montana, Sitting Bull and Chief Joseph were running circles around the U.S. Calvary less than 130 years ago6. Montana tribal members now live on seven Indian Nation reservations as well as throughout Montana. Homesteaders were still putting the prairie to the plow in the early twentieth century. Montana became the 41st state on November 8, 1889.

Montana is suffering a widening gap between have and have-not communities; some towns are growing while others are shrinking. This is reflected in our communities’ libraries as well. Typically, libraries in our larger or growing communities are doing better than those in our smaller or shrinking communities. An April 15, 2005 article in the Helena Independent Record spoke about…

… The gradual exodus of people continues from Montana's eastern prairies and north-central wheat country, while robust growth in more urban areas scattered across western and south-central Montana shows little sign of slowing, new figures from the U.S. Census Bureau show…

[Citing Jim Sylvester, an economist specializing in demographic analysis at the Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research] … The most rapidly shrinking populations cover all of rural eastern Montana with the exception of Roosevelt and Big Horn counties… [Homes of the Fort Peck, Crow, and Northern Cheyenne Indian reservations]

Sylvester said the trend of rising urban populations at the expense of rural areas has been under way since about 1970 when the baby boomers began moving away from home, looking for what they consider bigger and better places to live…

5 I thank my economist friend, Dr. Lawrence Nordell, employed by the Montana Public Services Commission, for his review of this section. His perspective helped me present what I hope is a balanced and accurate overview; however, any errors in fact and all conclusions are mine alone.6 In 1876 and 1877 respectivelyRural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


7



The decreasing populations in rural areas will continue, with some communities eventually disappearing entirely, he said. But many cities like Havre, Lewistown and Glendive have enough residents and are located far enough from other cities that they will always have a population requiring a core of services like hospitals and government agencies, he added…

Helena Independent Record, Bob Anez - Associated Press

Small communities are shrinking, while a few areas, Bozeman, the Bitterroot, and the Flathead, are now studded with million-dollar trophy homes and housing projects, and these scenic once rural areas are building-up like weeds.

We’re relatively poor with a gross state product ranking 48th and state and local expenditures per capita ranking 29th. Our average annual pay is dismally 50th, with librarians’ salaries reflecting this dismal trend. Our cost of living is about average, save our cost of housing which varies wildly from about the national average in our larger communities, to way below average in smaller towns.

We get by, with average household consumer expenditures of $21,747, just about half the US average of $41,554. Most of us grudgingly but willingly pay what we ironically call “the wilderness tax”, that is, the difference in Montana’s salaries for those paid in similar jobs elsewhere. We don’t get the big bucks but we get Glacier and Yellowstone national parks, great fishing, and our justly famous Big Sky. In a burst of civic silliness we deregulated our consumer energy industries several legislatures ago, and the ‘good deal’ we used to enjoy for heat and light has disappeared (with gas bills doubling for many of us in the relatively mild 2004--2005 winter).

What’s contributed to the decline of our most rural isolated communities? Agricultural slump Lumber industry cycles Energy industry boom and bust Environmental degradation Aging population Economic capability

Agricultural slump—A long term dip in grain and beef prices, a ten-year drought, the growth of agribusiness with resulting consolidation of ownership and a decreasing need for ranch hands, and changed business models for storing and transporting grain and meat to market; all have conspired to decrease the economic vitality of our farm- and ranch-based rural communities.

Lumber industry cycles—Forests are logged in cycles. It takes 50 to 80 years after cutting a Montana forest for it to get big enough to log again. We have cut most of our easy-to-get-at timber, and now wait for stumps to be replaced by marketable standing timber. This, in combination with a changing global market for softwoods, has left most of Montana’s lumber-oriented communities in decline.

Energy industry boom and bust—Montana is fortunate to have oil and gas resources, and to have sizable coal deposits. There have been several boom cycles for petroleum, mostly triggered by freshening demand and technologies able to cost-effectively extract and transport the oil to refinery and market. There are still untapped oil, gas, and coal reserves scattered across central and eastern Montana. Rural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


8



There is sustained interest in digging coal up and making electricity, or shipping it by rail to the west or east. There is considerable debate about this market’s future, the best guesses seem to be that coal and coal-related energy production will be sustained but not grow appreciably in the foreseeable future. This forecast is based on external market forces, not resource availability.

There is a renewed interest in coal-bed methane production; coal-bed methane is big in neighboring Wyoming and will be interesting to see if it takes off in Montana. Rising energy prices and improving extraction technologies may stimulate a renewed, if temporary, economic boost for nearby communities. There is fierce debate about the environmental and economic costs of producing coal-bed methane. Regardless, in the West most energy-related economies have, over time, shown themselves to be more bust than boom.

It will be interesting to see if the renewed (seemingly cyclical) interest in wind energy production proves to be sustained.

Environmental degradation—Montana Constitution, Article IXSection 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.

Mining and non-sustainable agricultural practices have left many of our communities in a mess. Water tables have been polluted with mine waste. Streams have been rendered unfit to drink by shortsighted mining practices. Many Montana communities host EPA Superfund sites within city limits. Economic expansion usually requires cleaning up last century’s mess before moving forward; the cost of cleanup often makes future growth difficult if not impossible.

Aging population— Under a million souls live here. Montana nationally ranks 47th in population density and 44th in population. We’re older than most states, ranking 10th in population over 65. In many of our rural communities, the average age of inhabitants is above state and national norms and increasing. With economic decline, young people are moving and staying away. There are a declining number of jobs to attract new members to the community workforce.

Economic capability—Some of our communities lack a sufficient economic base. Changes, such as rail line closure or highway relocation, can pull the economic rug out from underneath a previously economically viable community. Insufficient transportation capacity and high costs handicap many Montana communities; remote communities without ready access to rail cannot export bulk commodities except by means with unfeasible costs. Remote communities seldom are situated so that the world passes by their doorway, making tourism a sketchy proposition as an economic foundation. Similarly, many of Montana’s Indian tribal reservations are ill-sited with regard to resources and transportation, and with other challenges such as those listed above, many Tribes find it difficult to generate or sustain an economy commiserate with needs.

Previously agricultural rural properties are being snapped up for “starter castles” through much of Western Montana, and some think it is not unimaginable that this trend may slowly drift toward Wyoming and the Dakotas with aging baby looking for homes away from it all, and in a clean and healthful environment.Rural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


9



Education—We have a relatively high number of high school graduates, ranking 6th in the nation, and an average number of residents with a Bachelor’s degree or more, ranking nationally 22nd. Federal (per capita) aid to state and local government is ranked 12th nationally. Schools and libraries are valued, often passing levies and bond issues when other governmental agencies’ tax proposals fail. We’re willing, but for large parts of our beautiful state ‘willing’ doesn’t add up to enough money to fund our libraries or our schools.



10



HOW ARE MONTANA’S PUBLIC LIBRARIES DOING?

My detailed statistical information is limited to Montana’s seventy-nine public libraries. So Montana public library trends should not be generalized (at this time) to Montana’s academic, school, and special libraries. My guess is that there are more similarities than differences, and that public libraries are in many ways the canaries in Montana’s public services mine, but the State Library lacks detailed data about non-public libraries to reach this conclusion.

Many Montana libraries have grasped recent opportunities to work collaboratively and, through networked services and shared materials, to improve services for their users. Others have not. Approximately 400 of Montana’s 750 libraries participate in statewide OCLC or online full-text magazine subscription projects. I am concerned about what appears to be a growing gap between the capabilities of the ‘have’ and the ‘have-not’ libraries; networked services and materials are benefiting some but not all of Montana’s libraries. School libraries, in particular, appear to be the slowest adopters of networked library resources and services.

I wish for a statewide tide, of quality networked library materials and services, to raise all Montana’s libraries. I fear some of our smallest or most rural libraries, who have yet to connect their patrons to networked and collaborative world-class library content and services, are being left behind.

Compared nationally, Montana’s public libraries on average: Are less busy, ranking 35th or 34th in visits and circulation, 51st in reference

transactions Spend near the least on books, ranking 48th

Have an average number of books, ranking 25th

Have far fewer audio materials, ranking 36th Do an average number of interlibrary loans, ranked 26th

Spend less on everything per capita, ranking 45th

Have fewer MLS-level staff (ranked 49th)

Here’s a more detailed look at how Montana public libraries are doing.

Activity

Library Visits, Transactions, and Interlibrary Loan—Ranking, NCES7 2002 dataState Ranking

(Including D.C.)Number of library visits per capita 3.97 35th

Reference transactions per capita 0.49 51st

Circulation transactions per capita 5.66 34th

Interlibrary loans received per 1,000 population

33.73 26th

Montana public libraries report being visited less than are the average state’s public libraries and Montana public libraries answer comparatively few reference questions.

7 NCES—National Center for Education Statistics, http://www.nclis.gov/statsurv/NCES/stateranks/



11


http://www.nclis.gov/statsurv/NCES/stateranks/


Montana libraries borrow an average number of materials from other libraries. This may be because many Montana libraries habitually suggest interlibrary loan as an option for their customers, or because they depend upon others to fill holes in their collections.

The growth of shared catalogs8 in Montana has given rise to a freshening landslide of peer-to-peer resource sharing, with unmediated requests for returnables and a creative mix of courier strategies.

This year, six public libraries will borrow and lend more materials to each other than all the other public libraries in the entire state did last fiscal year. These six libraries share an online catalog, and are now sharing patrons. Their patrons can place holds on materials from any of the six libraries, with materials delivered to their home library the next day by bus. The two big libraries have in effect doubled their collections for the cost of bussing boxes of books back and forth; under $10,000 a year. The smaller libraries have increased their collections many fold. This Montana trend is mirrored in other states and consortia. Returnable items (books, videos, DVDs, talking-books, etc.) are representing a majority and growing portion of material lent between these ‘partnered’ Montana libraries.

“In my business, people are always saying it’s easier to move bits than atoms. Bits move at the speed of light. Atoms move at the speed of a 747, if you are lucky.” Howard Strauss, quoted by John McPhee in an article titled “Out in the Sort”, published in the New Yorker, page 168, April 18, 2005.

Montana libraries have always found it challenging to move books and other material from place to place. We live in a big, sparsely settled state. Bits do move faster than atoms. We have fewer options than do other more densely settled states, for efficiently and economically moving ‘atoms’ between libraries. As McPhee’s quote says, one of the advantages of e-content is that one doesn’t have to move it from library to library—everyone has access. Within sixty days, we saw interlibrary loan requests for magazine articles drop by about 25% when, over a decade ago, we brought InfoTrac into our libraries.

Paradoxically while e-content9 is increasingly important to our users, boxes of books are beginning to move between our libraries. Beer trucks move materials between Bozeman, Belgrade, and West Yellowstone. Bused boxes of books flow between six Western Montana libraries, where unmediated holds allow users to request materials from a relatively large (650,000 titles) shared catalog, and bus-based courier service delivers materials the next day. E-content is not killing the book, far from it. The maxim: “For our customers, more is always more”, is being demonstrated daily in Montana.

Materials

Public libraries have an average number of books, but fewer than average audio visual, video, and serial materials. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many collections are on the ‘older’ side (a statewide collection assessment would be helpful). These statistics gain meaning when you realize that Montana ranks last among the states for collection expenditures. 8 Twenty-nine (more than a third of) Montana public libraries are members of one or two shared catalogs. Overall, 134 Montana libraries share a catalog with other libraries.9 E-content includes digital books, magazines, online sound or movie files… anything that is ‘stuff’, is digital, and is online.Rural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


12





13



Books, AV, and Serials per 1,000 Population, 2002 NCES dataItems per 1,000

populationState Ranking (inc.

D.C.)Number of books and serial volumes

2,950 (2.95 per capita)

25th

Audio materials 83.02 36th

Video materials 79.17 34th

Serial subscriptions 6.03 29th

Montana public libraries spend, on average, about 14% of their budgets on materials. Expenditures are divided between print materials (11%), electronic materials (1.5%) and other (1.5%). Few libraries feature e-books, although most offer their patrons a variety of Gale full-text databases, part of a statewide contract. Here’s how we spend our materials money (next page):

Montana Public Library Materials Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2004 data, as a percentage of overall expenditures, MSL data10

Num-ber of

li-braries

Population Served

% Print-Mat Exp

Av Print Mat Exp

% Digi-tal Mat Exp

Av Digi-tal Mat

Exp

% Other Mat Exp

Av Other Mat Exp

5Serving more than 50,000 11.0%

$177,665 1.2%

$19,674 1.7% $27,471

3

Serving between 20,000 and 50,000 8.9% $60,458 0.7% $4,748 1.1% $7,683

11


15


24Serving between 2,000 and 5,000 12.2% $8,559 1.4% $967 1.7% $1,181

16Serving between 1,000 and 2,000 11.7% $3,476 4.5% $1,331 1.7% $502

5Serving fewer than 1,000 14.6% $2,891 4.4% $874 2.4% $479

The percentage of budget average spent on materials increases as Montana’s public libraries get smaller, but the amount spent decreases precipitously. Libraries serving areas with a population less than 2,000 spend, on average, $5,000 or less per year on materials. With the average cost of materials steadily increasing, smaller libraries find it tough to provide their users with all the best-sellers, new movies, a compelling variety of magazine subscriptions, or e-books.

10 Montana State Library data. MSL annually collects public library statistics and reports these data to the federal government. NCES data derives from these data. Tables marked “MSL data” derive from data tables at MSL, some of which can be viewed as the Montana Public Library Statistics http://msl.state.mt.us/ldd/Statistics/Stats.html.



14


http://msl.state.mt.us/ldd/Statistics/Stats.html


Despite this dilemma, which really pinches the smallest of Montana libraries, there is a growing interest in e-content. There is a convergence of all things digital (book and non-book related content), and e-content is looking increasingly attractive to many of our libraries; particularly academic and larger public libraries. We forecast that multimedia information sources (largely digital) will continue to grow in popularity, and traditional print formats will continue to experience steady growth (more is always more). Statewide and regional buying consortia will continue to make it possible for Montana libraries to belly-up to the digital-content bar.

Staff

Overall, Montana libraries have fewer staff and significantly less trained staff than libraries in other states. The average Montana public library spends about 64% of its funds on salaries and benefits.

Montana Public Library Staff, Compared nationally, NCES data, Fiscal Year 2002 dataPer 25,000 Population State Ranking (inc. D.C.)

Paid FTE staff 9.01 42nd

Paid FTE librarians 4.71 22nd

Paid ALA-MLS librarians 1.11 49th

Other paid FTE staff 4.29 50th

While the percentage of library funds spent on staff remains fairly consistent between larger and smaller libraries, the amounts spent on staff do not. Smaller Montana public libraries have small staffs, and find it difficult to attract masters level librarians. This argues for encouraging virtual partnerships and collaboration between libraries, and helping librarians work with and help each other.

Montana encourages public librarians to pursue continued education, using a mandatory certification program. The Montana State Library Commission requires that all public library directors of libraries that serve a population of less than 25,000 receive certification11 by attending classes or workshops in a variety of library-related topics.

Montana Public Library Staff Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2004, MSL data

Number of libraries Population Served

% Salaries + Benefits

Average Amt Salaries + Bene-

fits5 Serving more than 50,000 62.5% $1,010,5953 Serving between 20,000 and 50,000 67.7% $459,102

11 Serving between 10,000 and 20,000 67.3% $161,47915 Serving between 5,000 and 10,000 63.9% $72,46824 Serving between 2,000 and 5,000 65.1% $45,49916 Serving between 1,000 and 2,000 60.2% $17,8285 Serving fewer than 1,000 61.0% $12,096

The lack of Masters level librarians may be viewed as a special challenge in these rapidly changing times. As in libraries everywhere, Montana librarians are graying.

11 http://msl.state.mt.us/slr/Certification/certman.pdf



15


http://msl.state.mt.us/slr/Certification/certman.pdf


We aging baby boomers bring considerable experience to our work, but lack the technical skill-set displayed by recent library school graduates. We must work collaboratively to both teach and learn from each other. It suggests we renew our efforts to hire librarians fresh out of library school12; which implies a conscious strategy since we are a long ways from the closest graduate library science program. And it argues for continuing our on-the-job training. However, Montana public libraries spend, on average, less than 1% on continuing education. If we are retooling our workforce, we are doing it on the cheap.

How much money is spent overall, and where does the money come from?

Income, Fiscal Year 2002, NCES dataIncome per

capitaState Ranking (inc. D.C.)

Operating income $20.92 39th

State support $0.42 37th

Local operating income $15.88 40st

Other operating income $4.54 10th

Twelve states (including DC) ‘boast’ public libraries poorer than Montana. Both local and state support is significantly higher in most other states. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) statistics13 show, for FY2002, Montana ranking 45th among all states, spending $16.62 per capita on public library patrons, with Ohio spending a high of $53.93 and Mississippi ranked 51st spending $13.14 per capita. The average public library expenditure per capita in FY2002 was $28.94.

With the exception of North Dakota (ranked 46th, spending $16.16) neighboring states spent more on public libraries per capita: Wyoming $32.81, South Dakota at $24.74, and Idaho $22.85 per capita. Montana’s dismal 2002 showing continues a trend; since 1992, Montana’s highest nationally ranking was 43rd in 1994, and its lowest spending per capita ranked 47th in 1995.

How are the funds we have spent?

Expenditures per capita, Montana public libraries, Fiscal Year 2002, NCES dataExpenditures per capita State Ranking (Including

D.C.)Collection expenditures $2.25 48th

Staff expenditures $10.58 45th

Salaries and wages expenditures

$8.32 46th

Less money is spent on Montana’s public libraries collections than is spent in all but three other states in the union. Consistent with low salaries statewide, Montana libraries are extremely parsimonious when compensating their librarians. The ‘wilderness tax’ aside (the half-joking name we give to the substandard pay we begrudgingly accept to live in this beautiful state), it’s hard to support a family or

12 Both the Montana State Library and the Montana Library Association offer scholarships for Montanans seeking graduate-level library degrees. Recent scholarship winners have distinguished themselves in Montana libraries.13 http://www.nclis.gov/statsurv/NCES/stateranks/



16


http://www.nclis.gov/statsurv/NCES/stateranks/


send a kid to college solely on the average Montana librarian’s salary14.

Average Percentage Expenditures, Montana Public Libraries, Fiscal Year 2004, MSL data

Salaries & Benefits64%Continuing

Education1%

Print Materials11%

Electronic Materials1%

Other Materials2%

Op Expend18%

Cap Expend less Bldg3%

All Expenditures (less building related capital expenditures), All Montana Public Libraries, Fiscal Year 2004, MSL data

Salaries & Benefits

Continu-ing Edu-cation

Print Ma-terials

Elec-tronic

Materi-als

Other Ma-terials

Operating Expendi-

tures

Capital Ex-penditures less Bldg

$10,731,265 $134,131

$1,818,683

$234,240 $256,561

$3,037,589 $492,122

64.2% 0.8% 10.9% 1.4% 1.5% 18.2% 2.9%

All mate-rials

13.8% 100.0%

All or nearly all of Montana’s public libraries have some form of broadband Internet access. Thanks to the Gate’s Foundation’s programs, there are public access computers in our public libraries. However, few of these would report having an adequate number of public workstations, sufficient trouble-free bandwidth, or a big enough technical IT staff to meet their needs. Many libraries depend upon broadband connections, connections they share with a large number of users. These shared, usually digital subscriber line (DSL) connections, are usually not configured for supporting business processes. They usually work well, but when they don’t libraries are unable to provide network-dependent services. ‘Adequate’ Internet service is a moving target; needs change at the same time that dependence upon these service deepens. As data communications needs become greater, and more sophisticated, so do libraries’ need for technical support. This combination of increasing needs for service, and support, is cause for concern in isolated rural libraries. 14 The mean average Montana public library director’s salary was $27,112 in fiscal year 2003.Rural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


17



OCLC Membership

OCLC Members, Montana, Fiscal Year 2005, MSL dataNumber of Montana Libraries

% Library Type of Total

Libraries

OCLC Members Sept. ‘04

% OCLC Members by Library

TypeAcademic libraries 26 3% 21 81%Public libraries (& branches) 79 (30) 15% 76+1, (8)15 94%School libraries 561 74% 121 22%Special and institutional libraries

45 6% 18 40%

Total 741 (rounded) 245

Most academic and public libraries are OCLC members. School libraries are beginning to join, but their enrollment rate and numbers have lagged behind those of other types of libraries. Montana currently funds OCLC enrollment on a statewide cooperative basis. Twenty larger academic and public libraries bear just less than three-quarters of the $550,000 annual cost; the remainder of the costs are borne by smaller libraries and federal LSTA funds, managed by the State Library, that are used to encourage resource sharing.

OCLC membership includes, for most, OCLC’s cataloging and resource sharing services. Twenty-six Montana libraries are partners in a consortium that shares OCLC’s virtual reference application, QuestionPoint, and soon others will use CONTENTdm, OCLC’s and DiMeMa’s digital content management system. Most of OCLC’s services are collaborative host-based applications. Montana has a statewide flat-rate “Group Services” contract with OCLC, and with OCLC, was an early adopter of statewide services. In 1999, 26 Montana libraries had contracts with OCLC; in 2005 this number has increased nearly ten-fold to 245.

In addition to its role in cataloging and resource sharing, we look to OCLC to provide guidance and the infrastructure necessary to capture, preserve, organize, and make accessible digital objects and collections. We trust OCLC understands its strategic interests lie with the process and resulting content developed through collaborative digitization projects.

And we look to OCLC for help managing our patrons’ experience of the library, with an online reference service that matures to include a wide range of public access tools. OCLC also helps Montana libraries with providing access to networked content and services (and, in particular, helping with authentication).

OCLC is Montana libraries primary link to regional, national, and global collaboration. Beyond providing Montana libraries with a worldwide link to library resources and an opportunity for partnering, OCLC provides a cooperative context and opportunities to connect ourselves (and our users) globally.

15 76 of Montana’s 79 legally constituted libraries is an OCLC member. In addition, 1 not legally constituted library, functioning as a public library, is an OCLC member. 8 public library branches have separate OCLC memberships. MSL data.Rural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


18



I cannot generalize about how much Montana has in common with non-North American Libraries; I have not walked the proverbial kilometer in their shoes. But at OCLC Members Council I hear many Montana-like themes in the conversations of my non-U.S. and Canadian colleagues. At some level, libraries are libraries. Libraries from Asia, Africa, Central and South America may well be close cousins to those in Montana. My guess is that Montana librarians have much to learn from, and to offer, our global colleagues.



19



WORKING FOR ‘OUR’ CUSTOMERS

“... [W]e need to reconsider the use of possessive pronouns when we talk about what we do. The whole notion of "our" users ... and "our" information is becoming as meaningless as "our oxygen" or "our sun." We are plugging into an ocean of data, information, and knowledge that is abroad in the world, and information seekers have multiple resources upon which to draw, both proprietary ... and public domain...”George Needham, OCLC, by e-mail, March 1, 2005

Libraries are places of learning, where users are connected to the materials and services they need. A library’s success is measured by the degree to which it satisfies the knowledge-related needs of its users. Success breeds more success, and when it comes to library content and services, more is always more.

Libraries are neutral learning environments and have an important role in fostering collaborative behavior among our customers. Our libraries are no longer just physical places, as important as this continues to be. We now make resources available at home, work, school, or while our ‘readers’ are on the bus (networked information is everywhere). Libraries are our communities’ ‘living rooms’ in both a physical and virtual sense, we are a place to meet and learn collaboratively.

We are becoming a diffuse collection of services and distributed content. Libraries are multi-channeled, providing face-to-face service in our library buildings, phone support, and a robust online presence featuring a variety of quality content and services.

Here are some means by which libraries can improve our ability to connect our users to the things they want and need:

Offer customers the option of self-service

This will allow our customers more privacy and faster service. It will add ‘channels’ to our libraries, allowing customers to ‘come to their library’ in their bunny slippers, from their kitchen, and in the middle of the night.

Rethink how our customers get e-content and materials

Let patrons request materials from other libraries without inserting a librarian into the process (we may need a means of authenticating patrons automatically, such as is offered by larger integrated library systems). We know that unmediated interlibrary loan takes half the time as does mediated, and that per item costs are substantially less. Our customers, of course, love having convenient access to lots more stuff. There is a role for state libraries, consortia, networks and OCLC in this process.

Allow patrons to select materials for themselves and their libraries

Patron selection saves us time and builds a collection more likely to circulate. Disintermediated selection will become more important as more e-content is incorporated into our libraries the more e-content we incorporate into our libraries.



20



Manage our libraries for individual users, more like a subscription service than like a warehouse

Adopt just-in-time instead of a just-in-case philosophy. Many library materials can be acquired and delivered to customers when requested, not purchased in anticipation of need. This means rethinking our libraries’ acquisition workflow, and focusing on delivering materials into our users’ hands as quickly and inexpensively as possible.

Information has become disaggregated, that is, often what we need to know is located in multiple books, magazines, Web sites, or experts’ heads spread-out around the world. The mass of possibly relevant knowledge objects is knee-buckling and mind-bending. Our users want to read (or listen or watch etc.); they don’t live to search catalogs or fill out purchase request forms (as distinct from, and why is this, interlibrary loan request forms). Let’s connect our users with truly useful finding aids and value-added aggregated knowledge resources.

Add value to data and information by turning it into knowledge

This goes beyond simple cataloging and indexing, now we’re aggregating and presenting information for remote discovery. Increasingly we collect, select, organize and aggregate, condense, and publish information. We provide access to this information and manage for as long as it lives. There is content, unique to our communities, that our libraries need to make accessible and manage. We all have a role in managing access to, and preservation of, local knowledge.

“The digital library may well need to focus not mainly on content, but on communication… As content is privatized, digital libraries will provide services such as navigation, filtering and support, training, preservation and communication, quality and format, assembly and integration of content. There may be some types of content which publishers will leave untouched, but services are a more interesting area.”Peter Lyman, University of California, Berkeley. The Dynamics Of The Information Market, 1997, http://www.cni.org/regconfs/1997/ukoln-content/repor~t9.html

This process represents (arguably) the highest library art. It is difficult and expensive work, but it is worth it. One of the State Library’s roles is, through the Montana Library Network16, to facilitate the development of digital

16 The Montana Library Network helps Montana libraries work together. Working as good neighbors, Montana libraries make certain that all Montanans have access to quality library materials and services. MLN is, increasingly, groups of Montana partnered libraries. MLN began in May 1999, formed at the impetus of the Networking Task Force (NTF) and by the direction of Montana's State Library Commission. MLN helps Montana libraries plan to work together. We have built and maintain MLNCAT, a Web accessible catalog of all Montana libraries’ items. We help libraries share materials with one-another. We coordinate statewide access to 5,500+ full-text online magazines, and facilitate access to cataloging and resource sharing tools from OCLC. MLN has built and operates the rapidly growing Montana Shared Catalog, currently used by 56 libraries, 306 librarians, and 375,000 library clients from 36 Montana communities, and we are working toward ensuring the convenient but secure access to online resources.



21


http://www.cni.org/regconfs/1997/ukoln-content/repor~t9.html


collections, databases, and digital contents.

Build more channels for our library users

One of our public faces should be an online one. When our customers come ‘into’ our library at 2:00 a.m., they should not only have content available, they should have basic services such as reference and help using their library. ‘Virtual reference is really more ‘virtual public services’ or ‘online customer assistance’. For most of our libraries, this will be, by necessity, a collaborative service.

Build local infrastructure

Libraries need roofs that don’t leak, shelves to keep our books off the floor, and a robust information technology infrastructure to keep our customers satisfied.

MLN works with libraries and their Internet Service Providers to provide sufficient, reliable, and affordable data communications; it’s an uphill battle, we’re very minor players in the data-com business. We need to know more and be able to offer more to ISPs, in order to create opportunities to better manage libraries’ data communications. MLN is working to improve its inventory of libraries’ computer and data communications capabilities, to identify overlapping infrastructure needs, and to expand its knowledge regarding Montana academic, school, and special libraries.

Let’s provide our customers with convenient access to quality library content and services

Montana libraries serve an increasingly savvy population, one who finds Google and Yahoo quite convenient. We know that convenience usually trumps quality—good enough is, in fact, good enough. Our job is to make quality convenient.

Regardless of the quality of our online offerings, most of us hide these offerings behind a confusing array of login names and passwords. It’s great to offer quality online content, but it is essential that our users can get to it. Conveniently. The majority of our smaller rural libraries lack the IT infrastructure to provide easy access to the little e-content they offer. This is an unrealized role, as of yet, for MLN, state libraries, networks, and OCLC.

WORKING SMART

Librarians are responsible for managing our libraries to ensure a rewarding and successful library experience for our patrons. Our customers want more of a subscription than a warehouse experience when they use their library. They want to feel like successful and savvy users, and that the library was arranged around their unique needs. Increasingly our libraries can provide this type of service, leveraging computer technologies and e-content. Most of our customers want the best of what we can provide, delivered as simply and conveniently as possible: Edward Tufte, describes it nicely: “Simple design, intense content”.



22



Standards17 (such as MARC, EAD, Z39.50, NCIP, etc.) allow your library to partner and interoperate with other libraries and with others. Library resources (content and services) are becoming increasingly distributed. The ‘stuff’ and services we offer our customers is literally located around the world. Incorporating standards into our library systems makes it possible for us to provide access to this distributed content and these services, and to manage them in a cost effective manner.

17 See the Library of Congresses’ standards Web site: http://www.loc.gov/standards/



23


http://www.loc.gov/standards/


Here are some steps to help libraries work smarter.

When in doubt, err on the side of service. Let’s give our customers what they want. Any business that consistently puts customers second (to self-perceived internal requirements) is probably doomed.

Look outside of our library world for promising technology and practices; we tend to look at the world through library-colored glasses, instead of from our customer’s point of view. Inside-out planning tends to stick us in old paradigms, a problem in a world that has replaced its industrial economy with an economy that is information based.

Explore ways of weaving the Internet into our libraries and our libraries into the Internet. Add links to your library’s content and services on as many Web pages as you can. We can add our library’s holdings to WorldCat, which then lets us work with OCLC to make deep library content available through Yahoo and Google, by way of the Open WorldCat project.

Implement standards-based solutions. Do it right the first time, we are all going to have to pay sooner or later, we might as well pay sooner and let our customers enjoy the fruits of good library management.

Implement information-on-demand services and customer specific views of our library’s content and services. RSS (real simple syndication) and other standards-based services make it increasingly possible to provide every library user with personalized service.

Communicate clearly and effectively with our users, among our staff, and with our other-library colleagues and partners. Let’s tell our users who we are, what we’ll do for them, and be accountable for delivering on our promises. MLN works hard to clearly communicate with Montana librarians, and has a role in helping libraries market themselves to their communities.

Celebrate our and our partners’ triumphs. When we do something wonderful, let’s tell the world. We need to market ourselves, to our users, in an effective manner, one that allows us to measure outcomes for our services and for our marketing efforts. We have to know if we are making a difference, to whom, and what is that difference. State libraries, consortia, networks, and OCLC have roles, hopefully complementary, in helping libraries market themselves as relevant to their community.

Utilize affordable productivity tools that get the job done and that we know how to use effectively. Examples include tools for cataloging, resource sharing, public services, content purchase and subscription, and (digital and analog) content creation.

Rethink our workflows for both cost and efficiency, and for effectiveness as measured against our customers’ needs. MLN will continue working with OCLC, continuing our statewide OCLC contract and looking for opportunities for working smarter and working collaboratively. To capitalize on opportunities, we hope that Montana, and rural libraries generally, will maintain a voice on the OCLC Members Council.

Hire and retain trained and qualified staffs. Pay them what they are worth, Rural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


24



and provide all our employees with meaningful, rewarding work. Consider hiring librarians fresh out of library school; they took classes on topics not even invented when most of us (who’s your audience here?) were in school. Our increasingly sophisticated jobs call for career-long training, and for gaining a broad array of library, information technology, administrative, and political skills.

The State Library will continue to work, usually with others, to ensure Montana librarians have ample opportunities for quality, relevant learning.

Finally, critically, fund libraries adequately. Money alone won’t solve our problems, but we can’t move forward without money.

Montana is near or at the bottom of the library-funding barrel. Our customers deserve better; many libraries are failing at current funding levels. Funding begins locally, but there is a role for statewide funding efforts, just as there is for statewide content purchases, resource sharing, and service consortia. It is way past time that we recommence our work to secure adequate statewide funding for networked library content and services. The State library will work with others to find funding and partners for Montana libraries.

WORKING COLLABORATIVELY, SHARE CUSTOMERS

“When can we start statewide federated searching and a statewide resource sharing service that allows anyone in Montana to request anything from any Montana library, and have it appear at their library or in their mailbox?” Betsy Harper, Librarian, Montana State University Great Falls, February 2005

While good library services begin at home, libraries work most effectively and efficiently when they work together towards customer centered goals. Few libraries have all the stuff and staff they need to keep their customers satisfied.

The word ‘library’ is becoming a verb, and a group verb at that (if there was such a thing). Libraries are finding there is power in collaboration and consortia, working with one-another and with a wide variety of commercial and non-commercial partners. With the Internet, collaboration isn’t dependent upon physical proximity; rather it’s sustained by perceived mutual benefit and a growing collaborative ethos.

Our users care little about where the ‘stuff’ they need comes from, they just want it (and usually yesterday). Successful libraries (rural or urban) are often successful to the extent that they share users. “Your user is my user,” means more for our users: more convenience, more services, more content, and more satisfaction. When we treat another library’s users as if they were our own, our users get more. Rural libraries’ relative isolation and (often) lack of purchasing power make networked resources a very attractive option. In Montana, MLN works to create opportunities for seamless (from the patron’s point of view) content sharing between libraries.

In Montana we encourage resource sharing (or ‘patron sharing’), and library development, through statewide purchases of full-text databases, a statewide OCLC group contract, a statewide union catalog, shared online catalogs, several task-specific consortia, state-aid for public libraries, consulting, training, and interlibrary loan reimbursement. Montana libraries rely upon OCLC’s resource sharing tools for intra- and interstate interlibrary loans, however, increasingly; consortia non-OCLC Rural Libraries.word.doc 4/18/2005 9:35 AM


25



online-catalog-based borrowing and lending tools are being used by Montana libraries and regional partners. The Montana Library Network works in conjunction with the Library Development unit of the State Library to further consortia-related activities.

Montana librarians make good neighbors. We know how to lend a hand – ‘barn-building’ is what we call it. Everyone pitches in and helps. Historically collaboration has helped us deliver quality local library services; similarly our road to the future is paved by increasingly sharing patrons, resources, and by collaboration. The State Library will continue to encourage collaborative behavior by assisting standards setting, financing, training, and human interactions necessary for networking. This all occurs in context with the larger library world, with partners in adjoining states, in the West, and across the globe. OCLC plays a critical role in building and sustaining this global cooperative context for statewide collaborative activities.

What does this mean for Montana libraries?

Seek new library partners. Many projects are completed faster and better with more hands sharing the work. And libraries are bound by shared customers, content, services, and processes; working collaboratively often provides us opportunities to improve services for our patrons, who, as noted above, don’t really care where ‘stuff’ comes from.

Libraries are the Montana Library Network, far more than MLN is a work group in the State Library. As much as anything, the State Library provides Montana libraries an opportunity to practice collaboration, to become part of the MLN tapestry of collaboration, shared training, services, and content. Let’s all become active MLN members. Work with other libraries to find funding and partners for all Montana libraries to work collaboratively. Consider joining the Montana Shared Catalog, the cooperative Ask-a-Montana-Librarian reference project, or the new, as yet unnamed, cooperative digital content management consortium (Montaniana).

Seek new non-library partners, in education and cultural institutions such as museums, archives, and historical societies. We all share customers and content; we might as well make it easy on our users and, where appropriate, share processes.

Consider sharing a catalog with others. We are providing our patrons with bigger, consortial, networked, and more powerful systems. And our patrons love conveniently accessing books and more, from beyond their local library.

When in doubt, let’s give our customers what they want. Libraries exist for our users. A customer focused library is likely to be able to continuously refine services to meet our users’ changing needs.

Maintain existing working relationships with libraries—locally, regionally, nationally, and globally. Continue an active role in OCLC, BCR, and OCLC-Western, leveraging local and remote library resources, both content and services, from partners and sources spread around the world. Let’s share our resources with the world, just as the world shares its resources with us.

Let’s consider sharing our collections with other Montana library users using unmediated interlibrary loan; that is, let’s have our circulation systems automatically verify our patrons are in good standing, and let our patrons find



26



and request stuff from other libraries without our help. The systems and standards are there to let this happen. Let’s make it easier on our customers and ourselves.

Why don’t we buy shared, very targeted, collections of books and audio visual materials, and allow these items to rest on shelves at the library where they are returned? As long as patrons can find them, and request them, it doesn’t matter where they are resting at the moment.

With increasing amounts of materials moving between libraries, we need to develop industrial-strength courier services to ensure timely, cost effective delivery.

We all need to buy and develop more shared digital content. There are almost certainly local items that make sense (from our customer’s point of view) to digitize or share electronically.

It is time to resurrect the idea of a statewide library card, or its virtual equivalent, so that all our customers get treated like royalty in any library in Montana.

Finally, think ‘partner’. Let’s work together toward goals that, like the tide, float everyone’s boat. We are all in this together.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

So what does this mean for libraries, rural libraries specifically? What moves us toward a vision of healthy libraries and happy customers, and what is the role of state libraries, networks, and OCLC?

1. Montana libraries, particularly those in our smaller communities, are doing poorly financially. We are all in this together; when one of us is aground, we all feel it. And our patrons feel it. Montana libraries desperately need a fiscal tide that will float all our ships, money enough to run our libraries, funds sufficient to meet our customers’ needs.

2. Planning only works if it begins with our customers. Planning from what we know or what we have done in the past, inside-out planning, renders us insensitive to our community’s needs and to the changing world around us. This makes us steadily less relevant to our users and is a sure recipe for closing libraries.

3. Partner up. No library is big enough to provide everything our users want and need. User-centric libraries collaborate. Distant libraries don’t have to be strangers—collaborate.

4. We need more smart, freshly trained librarians in our libraries. The world has changed; many of us are getting older and we lack the skills to effectively integrate networked e-content and services into our libraries. We need more ways of learning, and more opportunities to welcome fresh blood into our grand game.

5. We’ve spent too long preaching to the choir. Librarians know about libraries. We need to evangelize, weaving our communities into our libraries and our libraries



27



more deeply into our communities. It’s time we marketed libraries in ways that make a difference to our users.

6. We all live in the same world, yet too many of us work with a values system fresh out of the nineteenth century. Being a good librarian in a good library is no longer enough because the definition of ‘good’ tends to be static. Our measure now is: How well do we connect our customers with knowledge—content and services? Content and services only become meaningful to our users when they make a difference, and this difference is what we measure when we want to assess our success.

7. Libraries are all about knowledge. Data is meaningless until it becomes information. Information is useless until it becomes knowledge. Libraries add value to information and turn it into knowledge. This value-added service looks a lot like authoring and publishing; it strongly resembles consulting. Patrons are suffocating in information; in a haystack, she who finds the lost needle is she who rocks.

8. If our customers can’t get to our library, what we have is useless. Books on the shelf would be useless if our library is always closed. Likewise, e-content is useless if folks can’t get to it – conveniently – from anywhere, anytime -- night or day. Convenience always trumps quality, and very little e-content in libraries can be accessed in less than three clicks. Authentication (allowing our patrons one-click access to copyrighted material) is the missing link for delivering e-content.

9. To our customers, a library is a library is a library. It is all about IT: Let’s make it easy for our patrons to find IT, request IT, get IT, and use IT.

10. Resource sharing is really patron sharing. Share patrons. Think ‘statewide library access’. Think ‘worldwide library access’.



28



Documents

Rural Libraries: Good (if often isolated) neighbors€¦ · Web viewThis, in combination with a changing global market for softwoods, has left most of Montana’s lumber-oriented