The Good Library Blog

This all seems very reasonable Tim. Even nice to librarians- assuming of course that by that you mean people who work in libraries.

If 'public library training' could be given a bit of rigour so that people are widely educated enough to make good stock selections and actually *know* the collections, all the better.

You'll still need some of those pesky cataloguers I'm afraid, if you want a truly local service. Who else is going to make all the physical and electronic links between the collections and the community? BDS will only take you so far.

Now, of course, cataloguing workflow could be managed so that they also provide support for front-of-house and for the purchasing side of things, but they will need off desk time to work.

As will people managing the local purchasing and processing of goods; having done it, it's not an easy job to do well when you are also staffing a (hopefully) busy desk.

I still think outreach in the form of some getting out of the library is needed- if only so that librarians can meet and get to know their communities and learn about their needs. That can't all happen in the library, especially when you're talking about 'school reading lists' and the like. Workflow changes could bring people to the desk/ front of house more, true, but it's not always possible for other people to come to us.

And whilst I don't advocate constant outreach regardless of people's needs- some people just don't need/want to use the library, any more than I want to use municipal golf courses- there is still, I believe, a need for librarians to build links *in* their communities, regardless of how splendid the library is, in order that all who want to make use of it can.

In time, it is to be hoped, that need will decrease as people start to use the library again and spread the word. But for now, promoting the library in the library will only reach those who already go; and you tell us that that number is declining all the time.

Pete

I'll take that as a thumbs up!! Of course I mean educated informed, interested, enthusiastic people working in the library.

So when I talk about 'the supply chain' - which I do a lot- I am talking about making all those processes of selection and acquisition, that you worry about, as easy and straightforward as possible for the librarians on site. They should only have to worry that they provide the right material easily and quickly. There isn't a huge volume of new stock going to each library-- in fact really it is a fraction of the volume of 'returned loans' - so I am sure a good supply chain will make it very simple. That's what we aim for.

I'm sure, too, the local library needs to build links to the local community- much much more and better than they do now-- but the point is that the outreach is being done by people who work and belong as part of the team in the library, in each individual library, not someone in a distant office. Do you understand?

Whilst agreeing that layers of centralizing influence in the supply chain on the surface does not seem to be adding value, I personally believe that going to the other extreme of every library doing their own thing also conjures up a picture of inefficiencies.

You are right Tim, it is the local libraries that ‘should’ know best what is best for their own communities, but then having worked that out, some shared or even centralized services can improve their workflow and therefore efficiency dramatically.

With experience of cooperative cataloguing; services that supply books shelf-ready to branches at the same time as delivering the relevant electronic records in to the library system; a shared EDI gateway which relieves libraries from the technical hassle of managing complex electronic relationships with several suppliers; and open shared Inter-Library loan systems, I have seen how these services can improve the efficiency of libraries enabling them to divert resources from the back to the front office.

I think the issue of concern is not that some things should come from the centre, but that the centre enables rather than controls.

On a slightly different but nevertheless relevant point George Kerr made some very interesting points about making better use of the stock a libraries already have, in the podcast I recorded with him last month. [http://blogs.talis.com/panlibus/archives/2007/08/george_kerr_tal.php].

Finally to pick up on your “library becomes inclusive and accessible - and most important - a vibrant energetic part of the local community” point I would also recommend a listen to Zoinul Abidin in a follow up podcast [http://blogs.talis.com/panlibus/archives/2007/08/the_idea_behind.php] on the subject of the Tower Hamlets Idea Stores. A radical departure from what many would call a local library, but definitely successfully engaging with that community, whilst maintaining the ethos that ‘books are core’, and issuing more books in the process.

Richard

I completely agree with you. For me the point that should bring the supply and information efficiency is the library supplier connection to the individual library, not the council.

The role of the council is, as you say, to encourage and also to manage and to provide a framework. The local librarians report to the council and provide a library service for the council. They are free to do that job, not any job.

The object of making this change (and it is a big change from what happens now) is not so they are liberated to have a good time and do what they like. The object is to enable them to provide a better public library service than they otherwise would.

Tim

I agree that the individual library/suppler connection is a key one, which today either does not exist or is wide open for improvement both technologically and organisationally.

The connection with suppliers is not the only one that can improve either the service offered by, or the efficiency of, a library - preferably both.

Libraries have a good history, especially on the cataloguing front, of co-operation for the benefit of all. Reenergising such initiatives and embracing newer technologies to place them seamlessly in to a librarian's work-flow would also be greatly beneficial.

Councils can encourage and provide a framework for their libraries to operate within, but if stopped there we would end up [in England] with 149 frameworks. I believe that there is a place for a broader framework at a National level. Again though, this should be an enabling framework which acts as a catalyst - identifying, highlighting, and most importantly sharing what is good across the whole community.

Who can/would provide such a framework, whilst resisting the temptation to command from the centre, is a question I will leave hanging.

It's a qualified thumbs up. I still believe in qualified librarians, with some specialist options built in; where we might agree is in the need to modify the training/qualificationb process.

As for outreach, I understand what you say tim- don't mistake disagreement for incomprehension ;)

That said, yes local librarians working in their local library and in their local community should do community building; and in a lot of places that is the case.

It is this sort of work, in and out of the library that makes a library into a library, as opposed to a mere book depository. And believe it or not, most public librarians want to give a good library service, not live some fantasy you impute to them.

Richard - I agree again-- 'catalyst' is exactly the right word- and that's not what the MLA etc are doing.

Tim,
an unqualified agreement here. The MLA should be acting as a lead in helping libraries (and, yes, archives and musuems) provide a better service. Perhaps less policy generation and more listening.
Perhaps the fact that it is "MLA" is the issue- there is a link between the three areas, but one body trying to cover all three is a little unwieldy.