In my first post on library technology planning I mentioned the importance of reviewing the existing daily system support operations. This isn’t a particularly sexy area of technology; it’s certainly not something that will get any attention in the blogosphere; it doesn’t revolutionize libraries with exciting new Web-based services. Yet, the regular system support operations are what keep our libraries functioning day-in and day-out. But it is also what often keeps libraries from being able to pursue innovative approaches to technology.

My comments apply mostly to a university environment, which is what I know best. Each university is different, with its own specific situations, so it´s not possible to offer definitive advice but there are some common issues that a technology review should examine. The goal should be to maximize the library’s resources for utilizing technology. The easy answer is that more staff is needed but that’s not always possible. An academic library should determine if certain technology functions could be better handled through another part of the university.

It’s important for a library to have an excellent relationship with the university’s main IT/Telecommunications division. On some campuses, this relationship has been adversarial. My sense is that, over the past ten years, the situation has improved at most universities. Libraries, like many academic departments, often started with technology on their own. In some cases, library staff may have even wired the building themselves. Based on my own experiences, I’ve seen libraries transition many of their system operations to a centralized IT division very successfully.

The benefit is that it frees library resources, particularly staffing, to focus on library-specific technologies rather than broader computing issues. Library administrators should know that such arrangements are never about saving money but about being able to accomplish more through available staffing.

Centralized IT divisions generally do not agree to take on these additional tasks from a library just out of kindness. There is often a chargeback for these services. Yet, it’s also in the benefit of centralized IT to manage many of these activities, especially for reasons of network security and stability.

To accomodate the IT financial charges, library administrators - along with IT administrators - could approach the university’s administration with a proposal identifying the benefits and the costs. In many cases, if the proposal is well conceived and delivered, university administration may identify additional funds that can be allocated to the library as a “pass through” budget item that would be funneled to central IT through the library for the management of centralized IT services. Of course, the tactics will differ at each university and library directors will know whether or not their administrations will be receptive to such proposals.

Of course, the immediate question from any administrator would be if funding for the chargebacks wouldn’t be available within the library’s own budget - particularly if staff would no longer be committed to supporting these operations. It’s at this stage that the library’s technology plan and the library’s overall strategic plan become very important. The library must show that it is thoroughly committed to delivering the best library services, as enabled through technology. To do so requires serious staffing commitments. Again, it’s not about saving the library money but about maximizing available resources to focus on technologies that most directly serve the needs of library users.

Indeed, a library might find that its future technology staffing requests are met more favorably once it has undergone a transition of some functions to a centralized IT division. This arrangement demonstrates that a library is doing all it can to maximize its resources and is not simply asking for a staffing increase without having first examined itself.

There is often a reluctance, particularly among technologists, to centralize certain functions. This fear is often based on a “loss of control.” In some cases, that may be legitimate. Ultimately, it all depends upon the credibility and support patterns of a university’s IT division and their willingness in this area. This process is usually a long-term approach, one where systems and techologies are slowly migrated over a period of several years so that both parties become comfortable with the solution.

Some of the technologies that should be examined:

• Networking Infrastructure: I would be surprised if there are still cases where libraries are managing their own networks and installing ethernet cable, but maybe there are some instances. However, the management of routers and switches should certainly be centralized.
• Network Operating System: This was a bigger issue in the ’90s when many institutions used NetWare. Many places have now adopted a Windows networking environment. And some libraries are likely not to have ever adopted a networked operating environment. Regardless, the technology planning process should conduct a review of the library’s network operating environment. It’s an expensive area of operations. And it’s vital for daily PC use, printing, and file sharing. University IT divisions are increasingly offering this service on a centralized basis. There are disadvantages since desktop support is directly impacted. Yet, when implemented in the right manner, with an excellent relationship between the library and central IT, it’s an approach that can work well.
• Hardware/OS support for the integrated library system: (Note: this area does not involve the actual ILS software support, just support for the hardware and operating system). Small and medium-sized libraries are likely to have a turnkey system where this support is provided by the vendor; the library’s main issue here is conducting regular backups. Considering that this system is the core of library operations, libraries may be especially cautious about not managing the system hardware and OS from within the library’s own staff. Yet, this can be a prime candidate for centralization, particularly due to its importance to the entire university.
• Application servers: these are the servers that support the web site, digital library projects, institutional repositories, and other small systems such as ILL software. In many cases, the hardware does not need to physically reside in the library’s server room.It’s more likely that programmers or system developers are connected to the server through a terminal connection in their offices rather than sitting directly at the server console. It´s the work of system administration (e.g., updating security, conducting backups) that take place at the machine itself. So, in some cases, the library may benefit from being relieved of these system admin duties by having some application servers centralized. Depending upon the capabilities of the library’s staff, it might even possible for one or more system staff within the library to retain root/superuser password access to its application servers.
• Developmental servers: this is the sandbox where programmers and developers test out new applications for the library. Of all library technology, developmental servers are the least likely to be centralized. The library’s technology staff should be able to explore and try out tools quickly and easy on its own developmental equipment.
• PC Support: There should always be technical staff within the library to respond its users requests and needs. However, depending upon the university’s PC support, arrangements might be worked out that allow for different levels of support. Some support may be provided in-house, while other issues might be handled through a central unit.

The entire purpose of reviewing daily system support operations is to identify if any resources can be re-allocated to focus on technology that is more library-specific. With an increasing amount of demands and needs for library technology, it’s almost impossible for any library to perform all of its technology operations independently. As I stated, any solution depends heavily on the quality and willingness of a central IT division to assume (even at a price) a greater amount of system operations from the library.

The library may well find that it can indeed perform those operations more effectively and more cheaply internally, which is great as long as the library also can move ahead with its other technological needs. In reality, it’s likely that a library will find some areas of system operations that can be passed to central IT and other areas that will remain internally. Even if a library ends up retaining all of its system operations, a regular review of these issues is an important part of library technology planning.

Possibilities for new services presented by recent developments in Web technologies bring up a recurring challenge for libraries: technology planning. All libraries face constraints on their resources for technology – staffing, financial, available expertise, equipment – as well as competing demands from other parts of the library.

Often there is the question as to why a library hasn’t implemented a particular, new Web-based service. The answer may not be lack of interest but simply the lack of resources. Many libraries just don’t have the time to implement these services while also maintaining the day-to-day operations of maintaining library systems, Web sites, a PC infrastructure, networks, and digital initiatives.

Balancing daily system administration, PC support operations, and specialized digital projects along with monitoring technology developments for new ideas require a careful approach to planning and management. It’s a lot easier to sit on the perimeter and say what should be done rather than being on the inside trying to accomplish everything.

Technology planning is an ongoing process. By “planning” I also mean the implementation and assessment of projects, which then feed back into the planning process. Technology planning, or any planning for that matter, isn’t the creation of a document that spells out objectives for the next five years.

Technology plans should focus on the next six to twelve months coupled with broader objectives for the following year or two years. The broader objectives should clearly identify any budgetary issues so that library administrators can get these requests into the budget proposals for the following fiscal years. Any group responsible for technology planning should have a clear understanding of its institutions budget cycle and proposal process.

I tend to think that technology planning works best as a group process, such as a standing committee with senior administrators and department heads (or departmental representatives) from across the library. The process should be led by the senior technology officer of the library; the exact position of that person will vary from organization to organization. While this individual likely could sit down alone and write an effective technology plan, the group effort fosters communication and understanding about the decision-making process and technology needs. It also ensures that the technology plan represents all the library’s interests and not just the special interests of the senior technology officer.

An initial step for a technology planning group is to identify the ongoing processes that need daily support. This task allow the non-technologists to gain a perspective on how much can be accomplished realistically while also maintaining operations. Sometimes, people outside the technology department do not have a clear idea as to how much work goes on behind-the-scenes to keep systems functioning smoothly.

In the initial review, some objectives may be identified related to daily operations that become high priorities, such as upgrading the integrated library system, acquiring a new automated tape backup system or expending funds to replace aging server equipment. The operational review also should examine desktop PC issues. A library should have a clearly defined desktop replacement strategy. It’s a process that is easily planned and budgeted. Library staff should not have to work with obsolete equipment.

So as not to write an essay in this one post, I’ll focus on other aspects of technology planning in future entries but the initial steps involve establishing a technology planning process, with the focus on process; utilize a group approach and review daily operational issues and needs. The technology planning group also should familiarize itself with the broader institutional IT strategy and, obviously, be coordinated with the library’s own planning process for services and collections.

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.