New Horizons Reflection: Looking Back on the 2017 New Horizons Report

When the NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Library Edition was published, it offered a snapshot of emerging technologies and shifting priorities poised to reshape academic and research libraries. Now, nearly a decade later, it’s fascinating to revisit its predictions not just to evaluate their accuracy, but to better understand the ongoing evolution of library identity. What strikes me most is how many of the report’s themes remain not only relevant, but urgent. Yet the pace of adoption has varied, with some transformations thriving, others stalling, and a few morphing into entirely new trajectories. 

One of the most prescient trends identified in the report was the rise of patrons as creators. The authors observed that “creativity… is increasingly the means for active, hands-on learning,” and that libraries were becoming “creation hubs on campus” (p. 14). Today, this prediction has solidified into standard practice. Academic libraries now regularly house makerspaces, media production studios, and data visualization labs. However, what has changed most dramatically is the scale and purpose of these spaces. During the pandemic, many of these creation-centered services moved online or hybrid, prompting libraries to rethink not just what tools they offer, but how they deliver them. Programs like virtual makerspaces and remote creative fellowships reflect how the “patron as creator” model had to adapt to distance and digital divides, expanding access while reaffirming its core principle: that libraries are incubators of creation, not just consumption. Hopefully, these services will be able to maintain the momentum reflected in the report going forward despite the interruptions that the pandemic caused.

Another trend, rethinking library spaces, has also proven remarkably durable. The report urged libraries to transition away from static storage toward flexible, collaborative environments, citing examples of spaces designed for both “collaboration and hands-on work” (p. 16). Having recently visited SPL’s Central Library in Seattle, I was reminded of how these architectural ideas have manifested in real life: The Book Spiral and open atriums reflect a deep commitment to transparency and accessibility, while also accommodating a spectrum of user needs from solitary contemplation to dynamic group engagement. Impressively, that branch was opened in 2004, so this forward thinking reimagining of space isn’t necessarily as new as we might think! But this trend has certainly stayed strong in the years since, and many public and academic libraries have followed suit, replacing rows of carrels with movable furniture, writable walls, and multipurpose zones that respond to the needs of different disciplines and different types of learners. In addition to my previous post, you can explore the SPL’s CL more here:

One area where the report was both accurate and optimistic was in highlighting user experience (UX) as a short-term trend. In 2017, the authors noted a shift toward “user-centric approaches, leveraging data on patron touchpoints to identify needs and develop high-quality engaging experiences” (p. 20). This principle now informs everything from website redesigns to metadata schemas. However, the UX profession within libraries has also matured into a specialized field. Institutions are hiring dedicated UX librarians or embedding UX practices into assessment workflows. Perhaps more significantly, “valuing the user experience” has transcended the digital interface. Libraries now apply UX thinking to spatial design, signage, workflows, and even collection development. The question is no longer just “can the user find this?” but “how does the user feel when interacting with this?”

That said, not all of the report’s predictions have unfolded as cleanly. The expectation that AI and the Internet of Things (IoT) would be widespread by 2021 may have been premature or at least overly narrow. While AI has certainly made inroads (notably through chatbots, recommender systems, and machine learning in metadata enrichment), it has not yet revolutionized library service in the ways some expected. IoT, too, remains mostly absent, perhaps due to privacy concerns and infrastructure limitations. However, the rise of generative AI in just the last two years has reopened this conversation in entirely new terms. Tools like ChatGPT and other LLMs now raise ethical, pedagogical, and practical questions about the role of libraries in supporting, critiquing, and regulating the use of AI in academic life. Undoubtedly these technologies will be defining issues going forward, so perhaps we can only fault the New Horizon’s report for its optimistic timeframe.

What remains most compelling about the 2017 report is its treatment of challenges, especially the category it called “wicked”, focusing on seemingly intractable ongoing challenges. Among these, embracing the need for radical change feels as critical now as ever. The authors wrote that these challenges are “complex to even define, much less address” (p. 34). The 2025 EDUCAUSE report refers to them as “polycrises”. These upheavals of the last five years, including a global pandemic, struggles for social justice, the rapid acceleration of misinformation and factional thinking, and the reconfiguration of higher education, have laid bare just how much libraries must adapt not only to new tools, but to new values and responsibilities. The most forward-thinking libraries are not simply tech adopters; they are values-driven institutions that use technology in service of equity, access, and agency. Recent political threats to funding of public library infrastructure have further underscored the urgency with which libraries and those who support them must fight to assert their fundamental value.

References:

Becker, S.A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Giesinger, C.H., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 library edition. The New Media Consortium.