Hi Andrew,
> - a clear understanding of what I want, what I need, what I
> have and what I am and am not getting from my vendor.
> - a list of alternatives, if necessary.
> - an understanding of what my users - my customers need
> first, and then an understanding of what staff need, first from
> the bottom-up, and then from the top down.
> - explicit backing from management, from me all the way
> up the org chart.
> - clear authority to negotiate.
> - and if I can get it, money. Maybe its just clarity about
> what I've paid and spent so far.
You write so much I agree with which also summarises so much of what
I've been saying here myself ;
Do we - as libraries - know what we are *supposed* to be doing? (not
meaning to self-promote, but it's an important issue to me ;
http://shelter.nu/blog/2006/06/library-stew-have-you-checked-your.html)
Do we - as librarians - ever test the underlying reason for why we're
doing what we're doing? Do we librarians ever test to see if our
assumptions about our job is true?
This almost comes across as a newbie question, doesn't it? But I have
great faith in asking obvious and stupid questions from time to time,
because humankind - especially the one that's somewhat organised! -
have a tendency to forget that the world is in constant change. Even
the very foundation on which you built your castle may shift or turn
out to be a swamp. Sure, we can build another one on top of the one
than sank, wait until that one sinks as well, build another one,
hoping it stays up. Why not build somewhere else but the swamp?
People do tell me that librarians have been doing "this stuff" for
thousands of years, and that we're not exactly walking blind, that we
do have a lot of knowledge in this area, that we're not all that
stupid, and please shut up.
But look at the discussions on this list! Do we know what we want?
What we *need*? And perhaps more importantly; do we know what our
*users* need? Do we *really* know, or are we assuming a lot of
knowledge here? C'mon, I dare you! Do you really know what they need?
> David Scharf hit the nail on the head: technology changes,
> people don't.
I'm tempted to say the exact opposite; technology stays the same,
while people will always change! The technology is still binary logic
gates that open and shut in established patterns, the computer is
still the same basic components, the systems designed are still db,
interface, logic driven ...
... the thing that changes are the ideas on how to use technology.
People. It all comes down to people, people you're catering to, people
you're working with, people who fund you, people who adore your goals,
people who don't see the point. People. It's all about people, *never*
about systems or programs or policies or rules or mission statements
or anything else. There are human beings at every layer of the systems
we create, from ideas to design to making to presentation to use.
To many, this is stating the obvious, and perhaps preaching to the
choir. I'm hoping I'm preaching to the choir? Please tell me I'm
preaching to the choir!
> Where is the leadership coming from to make the next big
> leap [to the next generation catalog - MJA] which we all
> agree is sorely needed.
Freakin' excactly! Where is leadership? It does not sit in a commitee,
I guarantee it, nor in sales meetings nor in application design. The
Next Generation catalog should be designed with the Next Generation
*library* in mind, and do we have a friggin' clue as to what that
might be? C'mon, folks, I dare you; do we *know* what the Next
Generation library should be?
> My questions are:
> - What is the definition of a next-gen catalog?
Something that caters to the NextGen library.
> - What should a next-gen catalog be able to do?
Help NextGen library fulfill its needs.
> - How should it look & act with & for my users?
Let's ask the users.
> - How do I accommodate changing needs (at the front) and
> technology (at the back)?
My technological answer would be decoupling of front and back for
sure, but there's a human answer, too; both needs to be simpler in
overall design, with simplicity leading the visual path and complexity
hidden away from the user (be it developer, designer, user, admin,
onlooker, technology people, etc)
> - How do I get this new wonder in an affordable, timely and
> technologically viable way (def. - works, in-use,
> well-documented, understandable design, support available,
> scalable, customizable)?
>
> - Do I:
> * Buy it from a vendor?
> * Get a FOSS product?
> * Make it myself?
I foresee a combination between the last two, but with a decoupling of
services so that the first option is still open. That way, we can get
it through all three channels.
> - If the product is pre-existing, do I:
> * Use it stock?
> * Customize it a little?
> * Customize it a lot?
Again, this comes down to product design. If customising it is easy,
it speaks for itself, right? If it's well-designed to begin with,
stock option is fine for most.
> Above all I am interested in this:
>
> - Library bought a vendor system - what are the model
> implementations and failures?
> - Library acquired a FOSS product - what are the model
> implementations and failures?
> - Library created their own systems - what are the model
> implementations and failures?
There's the intersection of the two last options, where we use FOSS
and *help* its development, where we put our comittement. That's the
whole idea of FOSS, is it not? (I personally don't believe in the
first option, because the small market create vendors who can afford
to create systems that are less than optimal; and then there's the
lock-in)
> We don't talk nearly enough - public ally - about project
> failure in this business.
http://shelter.nu/blog/2006/06/what-is-library-project-success.html
>"What works?
> What do we do well and how do we do more of it?"
Amen.
Regards,
Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
- Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________
Received on Thu Jun 22 2006 - 17:24:13 EDT