May 18, 2006

ALA Library 2.0 - My Perspective

All of the discussions about ALA Library 2.0 and its implementation are great (Library 2.0, Open Stacks, Free Range Librarian, and A Wandering Eyre & followup). The ability to provide one's opinion and learn from resulting discussion is Web 2.0.

As a disclaimer, I am a member of ALA and a participant in ALA Library 2.0 (ALAL2). I was asked to participate in ALAL2. I decided to participate for my own and my organization's benefit, just as much as for the benefit of ALA.

I decided to participate in this initiative with the hope that ALA will see the advantages (or disadvantages) of these various technologies and processes. I hoped we would finish with a package of data, experiences, policies, and examples, that could be used by ALA or any of its members to implement or instruct in Web 2.0 technologies and understand the mindset of newer/younger library users.

While I have had many of the concerns others have had about implementation of ALAL2, I am glad it was done this way for many reasons. Mainly because if you look at the "big picture", a "real world" activity has been created. Let me explain.

Participants
I have heard some comments that the group of participants has created some hiccups. First, everyone is participating at different levels of time and commitment. This could not be any more "real world" than what we all experience within our own organizations or within ALA. Everyone we work with has different motivations, personality traits, communication skills, etc. I think ALAL2 is one of those times when the final outcomes are more important than the individual contributions.

Second, the participants are at various levels of technology awareness and places in the career ladder. Some are spending more time learning the technology, while others may have been able to jump right into the provided information. There is nothing wrong with this. It reminds all of us, and as a result will be evident in the final outcomes, that our library users span the spectrum. It reminds all of us that not everyone learns the same way. It reminds us that not every process will work the first time for everyone, nor will every user do things the same way.

Technology
I think the problems we have had with implementation of various technologies only added to the learning environment. Since ALAL2 is a chance to "play" and share key learnings with ALA (or any information professional), I am glad the learning environment was not totally optimized and error-proof. As participants, we needed to make errors and run into road blocks so that we could totally be saturated in the project and make "real world" suggestions to other information professionals. Someone even suggested the the technologies and instruction methods be tried on others first. BUT, as participants in ALAL2, we are the "others" - the first. It is our responsibility to define what does and does not work, not just "play" with the optimized or ALA-selected way of doing things.

In addition, I have been trying to look at some of the technologies, processes, and discussions from a user's perspective. No matter what library's decide to implement, there will always be patrons that disagree with the choices. We have experienced that in ALAL2 and again it is another reminder of the "real world".

Instructors (and librarians) constantly push their favorite tool or technology that works best for them. It is not until a user points out a problem or an alternative, that all the options might be totally obvious. Otter Group, Jenny, and Michael have molded the ALAL2 experience with the technologies that were best at the moment of its creation. They all have pushed us to try alternatives and bring recommendations to the overall group. Groups have discovered and utilized wikis, OPAL, and Skype just to name a few. A big part of ALA2 was exploration and the initial tools have not prevented that, but in some have pushed for exploration into alternatives.

Implementation
I am glad ALA decided to proceed this way. First, as with any large organization, an expected procedure or final product, get greater results than others. If this is ALA desired method of exploring Web 2.0 and its advantages for its membership, fine we did it their way. It allows the leadership of ALA to focus more on our outcomes rather than the implementation.

Second, the Otter Group has provided several advantages. Again, I will go back to "real world" scenarios. By having the Otter Group manage the technology, we have simulated a large number of the library organizations that utilize external IT support or are at the mercy of a larger organization's IT department. It cannot be any more "real world" than that. Second, I bet Jenny and Michael are learning more from the experience and able to add more to the final product by being active participants, rather the techies. Their knowledge is more valuable in the discussions than in teaching people to use a new form of technology.

My Conclusion
I guess this is one time where I was glad ALA was hands off and introduced as many variables as possible. It allows ALA's leadership to be a spectator, and learn from the discussion between ALAL2 participants and others following along. I think if ALA would have done it any other way, too many preconceived notions of the future of Web 2.0 within ALA would have crept into the picture and defined the experience. I think the implementation, the participants, and the freedom to adjust as needed has created a "real world" environment that has allowed us to be the test tubes for others.

I hope others are as eager as I to see the final suggestions and outcomes of ALAL2, and are optimistic that our hard work will lead into implementation within ALA and/or the organizations of its members.

Categories

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/mt-tb.cgi/14688

Alternative Trackback Sources: | Google It! | Technorati | Bloglines