« June 2009 | Main | August 2009 »
July 19, 2009
Swindon
Among the many sensible suggestions made by the 2005 Kaufman Culture Select Committee on public libraries was one which said that there ought to be a simple charter to define what library service people are entitled to
In the case of Swindon, it seemed to me, such a charter would have provided, at the outset of the long argument, a straightforward answer. The questions were totally simple. viz, for example
1. Is Old Town a community of sufficient size to need a public library? Answer - Yes-- as plain as day to anyone who went there, or looked up the size of the resident population
2. Do the council allocate sufficient of their funds to provide a library in a community of this size? Answer - Yes . they allocate much more than the national average. Money was never a problem
3. Supplementary -- if the current library isn't used as much as an average library would be is there an obvious reason ? Answer -- Yes , the library is in a fabulous position right in the heart of the town, but it is terribly small and is hardly ever open.. Solution - make it bigger and open it longer: those factors make a difference.
The people of the town are entitled to answers of that nature. What they shouldn't have to endure are reports, from the council or its advisers, written in incomprehensible language explaining in the most supercilious and pompous manner the complicated structure of local government management - which in the end just appear like an excuse for not doing the job properly.
The realities of the public library service are terribly simple-- and it is time that politicians and highly paid government officers pulled their fingers out of the plug hole next to which they appear to stand all the time, and gave the public the service and the value for which they pay and to which they are entitled -- all of them.
Posted by Perkins at 8:50 PM | Comments (1)
July 18, 2009
No more reports
We won't improve the public library service by writing any more reports about it.. We need plans to make specific improvements -- and we need analysis of public opinion about libraries, but we don't need any more reviews.
In Swindon this week ERS have produced a report which echoes almost exactly the work that was done six months ago-- but it isn't the plan for the improvement that is needed; it is the opposite- it is calling, again, for a plan to be written. A plan would have shown exactly what is going to be done, how it will be paid for, who will do it and what results it is intended to achieve and when.
The management and leadership is too weak - and that will not produce the improvement to which the public is entitled for the money it pays.
Perhaps the DCMS and the APPG have realised this and abandoned their year long review programmes. Pigs might fly.
Posted by Perkins at 11:16 AM | Comments (1)
July 11, 2009
What the Capital Ambition Libraries programme for London should be doing
Last week I drew attention to the Capital Ambition programme for London and within it the project for public libraries
As is normal among government documents these are so badly written as to be painful and I am told that they have been submitted to the Campaign for Plain English as an example of the kind of toothache we can all do without.
However I want to make a number of points of free guidance to those who are on the Programme Board
1. The starting point (as Tribal rather meekly tried to say in their report that preceded this) is THE PUBLIC. You have to begin by understanding what the public want from their library service and why they choose either to use it or not to use it. It is perfectly possible to analyse the 'usage and attitude' of users and potential users in the way that any public trading body, commercial or non-commercial, would do. The programme of work hardly acknowledges that the public in London are stakeholders at all-- there is no statement of what one believes that people want. The first project should be a detailed analysis of the public need.
2. That analysis would then identify what measures the management can use to know whether they are doing what the public wants. Until those things are done the project should go no further.
3. It is ridiculous, therefore, to embark on three projects about library loans, workforce development and procurement processes without knowing what one is trying to aim for by doing them.
The Tribal report was not too bad- but I thought it was too long and too waffly. Buried within it are some quite sensible observations.
However the Project Board (nice people though they are)- have fudged. The project is now off-track because they haven't given a clear lead. And the idea that they will ever solve the three problems they have listed by using committees of chief librarians to do so, I'm afraid, is a terrible joke. Call me in two years and tell me I was right.
Step one was to carry out clear, independent, professional market research - without that, the project is yet another huge waste of time and money. Step two was, from an understanding of that evidence to make a clear statement of purpose with which both the public and the management could agree. Step three was to identify the priorities, from the public point of view and the resources needed, and then a management programme with clear responsibilities, to achieve some defined aims.
In fact that is what the DCMS review should also have done, too. But they haven't.
The main and most important stakeholders who both pay for the service and choose whether or not to use it-- are Mr and Mrs J Public. They come first. You have to know what they think and what they want and, using the resources they provide, work quickly and effectively on their behalf. That is Public Administration.
Posted by Perkins at 8:32 AM | Comments (1)
July 4, 2009
What people have said.
"There is only one thing in the life of men, nations and States which is without price, and that is honour. "
This was the statement of Josef Beck, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Polish Government in May 1939. Perkins is editing the diplomatic exchanges in Europe at that time. The sentence jumped out, it was from a speech of M Beck to the Polish Parliament. The Poles were under mortal threat from all sides.
Posted by Perkins at 6:57 PM | Comments (2)
What is being done for public libraries in London?
This blog has often said that we have watched the needless collapse of the public library service in London and that the bureaucrats who are responsible for it meddle and muddle endlessly in the wrong activities.
In my list of recent major reviews I included 'whatever is going on in London' because there generally is one initiative or another which occupies a lot of time and paper. Methodical espionage by our tirelesss research department has found out what is happening.
For your amusement - here it is
Believe me- -when one asks what is being done about libraries in London, this is the work that is cited. I leave the comments to readers, except to say that committees of librarians- like this one- simply do not bring improvement. Never have, never will.
Posted by Perkins at 8:33 AM | Comments (2)