One of the most important aspects of successfully managing technology is communicating effectively. Before initiating a project a technology manager needs to establish support and buy-in from administrators and librarians. One of the quickest ways to derail a project proposal is to start spouting evangelical buzzwords. If a library technologist gets labeled by one’s colleagues as person who talks bibliobabble, then the development of innovative library services become much more difficult.

In the library blogosphere the term Library 2.0 has become a popular expression to explain some new online services that could be developed by libraries. I also find myself mildly allergic to all the messianic talk regarding Web 2.0. Now, not only do we have Library 2.0 but we have L2, for short. It all sounds like marketing speak coined by a systems vendor. Of course, that’s because it came from a marketing white paper written by someone with the job title of “Technology Evangelist”. Update: I’m wrong about the origin of Library 2.0 (see comment below). Michael Casey is responsible for the term.

I have absolutely no problem with the concepts behind all the Library 2.0 talk. Indeed, the concepts are great but it’s the term that I oppose. Sure, one can say that it’s just semantics and we don’t really need to worry about it. But as long as advocates use buzzwords to describe the concepts then there is the danger that the concepts are misunderstood while people try to understand the buzzwords.

To be successful in managing technology, one should be careful about not getting into a position of having to defend or explain the semantics. Instead, effective technology leadership should focus on outcomes and specific examples of what can be accomplished through the technology. In this manner, the attention goes to the library services that are enabled through the technology and not on the buzzwords.

Another aspect of the danger behind Library 2.0 and interpersonal communications is that it implies that something is wrong about libraries as they now exist, which can give way to endless discussions about what is Library 1.0, Library 1.51, Library 2.0a, or what will be Library 3.0, and will we reach Library MMX (that sounds cool) in the year 2010.

All librarians that I know believe in the importance of user-centered services. As much as (or maybe more than) collections, services are the core of our libraries. Web technologies offer enormous possibilities for the continued development of exciting library services. The potential of library information becoming more granular and re-purposed presents an innovative set of digital content-based services.

As someone who has managed a lot of library technology projects, I feel that the danger behind Library 2.0 is that the message can be obscured by the terminology. Let’s concentrate on talking about and developing those services rather than getting lost in defining versions of the library or the most appropriate rubric for describing these services.

A challenge to Library 2.0 advocates: try talking and writing about these issues without using the words “Library 2.0” or even Web 2.0. Your audience may be just as receptive and is likely to ask not about the semantics of Library 2.0 but, more importantly, how do we develop those services.

My prediction (and hope): the services represented by Library 2.0 will simply, one day, be called the library.

Update: I wrote this last night just before seeing that Walt Crawford had issued a special issue of Cites & Insights on Library 2.0. Definitely worth a look to get an overview on the reaction to this topic.