Assignment X: Intentional Innovation is User-Centered
As a chronically online individual, I am familiar with the rise and fall of trends. Silly acts, funky outfits, or groundbreaking products will capture the attention of people all over the world, only to become obsolete or “cringe” within a couple of years. With limited budgets, staffing, and resources, how can libraries keep up? During these last few weeks, as we have explored several readings associated with the hyperlinked library and user-centered services, one theme has stuck out to me: the concept of intentional innovation. I believe this is the key to ensuring that our information institutions are set apart from the libraries of the past and that changes are sustainable.
Change is a constant, and libraries are not immune to the evolution of technology and cultures. Thus, innovation is required to maintain relevance. However, there is a difference between good and bad adaptations. Steve Denning (2015) argues that there are three wrong paths that libraries can take when trying to maintain relevance.
- Computerizing existing services without imagining what could be possible.
- Applying 20th-century ideals of efficiency and cost reduction towards computerization.
- Building apps without grounding their purpose in user needs.
Denning’s points were difficult for me to wrap my head around at first. Is not any progress good progress? Even little steps can help prevent stagnation. With some reflection, I have come to the conclusion that some changes are deceiving, particularly if they impede our ability to build upon them. Can changes really be progressive if they lead to dead ends? We want our libraries to make sure they are moving on the right path—in a direction that builds on the longevity libraries have established through hundreds of years of adaptations. Progress does not end in obsolescence. Progress inspires evolution.
It is simply impossible for libraries to keep up with all of the changes in our society. In this rapidly shifting environment and with limitations on resources, librarians must be selective with the technological and structural adaptations made. They must be intentional. Denning (2015) suggests there are five questions libraries can ask to put them on the right path.
- How can we delight our users and customers?
- How can we manage the library to enable continuous innovation?
- What will make things better, faster, cheaper, more mobile, more convenient or more personalized for our users?
- What needs could libraries meet that users haven’t yet even thought of?
- What are the things that libraries are currently doing that users already love? How can libraries do more of those things, and do them sooner, better, faster, and in a more convenient, more personalized way?
In summary, innovations should be centered in what will delight (great word choice!), convenience, and engage users while meeting their needs. Keeping the users in the center stage of the discussion around changes in the library will ensure that we are adhering to our long-term purpose—to meet the information needs of our community members.
One example of innovation that was not received as planned is the rebranding of the Seattle Public Library in 2015. Although the rebranding was necessary according to Publisher Weekly columnist Brian Kenney, he cited that a lack of public involvement throughout the project led to some disappointing results (2015). There was little communication on why the rebranding was needed, and it was difficult to justify the necessity to the library’s community when patrons did not have much input on the process. Kenney ends the article with some words of advice.
“When patrons learn about a new library initiative, they’re not interested in how our work is changing, or how libraries are transforming. They are looking to see their needs, hopes, and dreams reflected back to them. And if we’re not doing that, not only will we see our proposals fail, we’ll soon be out of business.”
Further, as Michael Stephens wrote in the Heart of Librarianship, the best librarians use experience, evidence, and a view of the big picture to make rapid and meaningful decisions (2016, p. 13). Changes are not made on a whim, to keep up, or just to keep things fresh. These librarians are at the forefront of informed and intentional innovations that are inspired by the people we serve. I hope to one day be one of these user-centered, data-driven librarians for my community.
References
Denning, S. (2015, April 18). Do we need libraries. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/04/28/do-we-need-libraries/?utm_campaign=ForbesTech&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Technology&linkId=13831539
Kenney, B. (2015, November 13). Lessons from Seattle’s failed bid to rebrand its public library. Publisher Weekly. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/68666-brand-awareness-lessons-from-seattle-s-failed-bid-to-rebrand-its-public-library.html
Stephens, M. (2016). The heart of librarianship: Attentive, positive, and purposeful change. ALA Editions.