All posts by Steven Bell

Uncategorized

Designing a Better Organization

Leave a comment

Last week marked my one year anniversary as the University Librarian at McMaster.  Those of you who are familiar with my personal blog know that it has been an eventful year, to say the least.  Over the past 12 months we have made significant organizational changes that have affected nearly every member of the staff.  Over the course of the year I have given numerous public presentations on our transformation as have many of my staff.  I thought it might be of interest to those of you reading Designing Better Libraries to hear about our transformation process and the outcomes as of the writing of this entry.  After all, designing better libraries also means dealing with issues related to staffing and organization.

Setting the process in motion

Prior to my arrival the McMaster University Library was a fairly traditional organization. The organizational structure and the functions of the various units had been rooted in traditional library roles and services.  It was clear during the interview process that the challenges were related to a lack of space/unattractive spaces, declining budget (particularly monographs) and personnel (some might ask “what’s left”?) and that those challenges were substantial.

The three biggest challenges related to staffing included:

 

– the lowest number of professional librarians among members of the Association of Research Libraries;

– high percentage of staff in “back office” operations; and

– staff members who had not been given the opportunity or encouragement to expand their skills to meet the changing demands of our students and faculty.

 

The four biggest opportunities at the time included:

 

– recognition by the staff that change was needed;

– recognition by the University Administration that change was needed;

– recognition by the staff union that change was needed; and

– existing vacancies generating salary savings.

These opportunities allowed us to make changes that were difficult but essential for us to move forward with our plans of “transformation”.  Making significant changes without a recognition of need and without some flexible funding would have been much more complicated and potentially much more difficult.

 

By December of 2006 we were able to offer (in collaboration with the staff union) a voluntary separation package that included:

 

– an incentive for up to 10 individuals to voluntary separate.  (The offer was only made to all unionized staff regardless of age or years of service.);

– an agreement that these positions would not be filled again as they were previously defined;

– copy cataloging as a function and unit would be eliminated (shelf-ready and PromptCat would be used instead); and

– the remaining copy catalogers would be redeployed to existing vacancies or other positions that best matched their skills and abilities.

 

Ultimately eight individuals took the voluntary separation package which amounted to an early retirement for these particular individuals.

 

Restructuring the organization

The library has since been restructured into three divisions:

 

– Collections and Facilities (including traditional TS duties and storage)

– Teaching, Learning and Research (including Research Collections, Maps, and traditional public services such as circulation, ILL, etc)

– Library and Learning Technologies (including digital initiatives, the website, the ILS, etc)

 

In general, the restructuring allowed us to increase our emphasis on public service, particularly the “user experience”; increase emphasis on development of digital resources; integrating the libraries into teaching/learning.

 

Filling vacancies

In 2002 ACRL released its report “Top Issues Facing Academic Libraries”    which identified the need to “find and retain quality leadership” as one of the top priorities.  During the transformation process we created seven new librarian positions.  They include the following five positions that have been filled to date (these are linked to the announcements about the positions):

– Digital Strategies Librarian

– Digital Technology Development Librarian

– Immersive Learning (Gaming) Librarian

– Marketing, Communications, and Outreach Librarian

– Teaching and Learning Librarian

Two remaining positions are still “in process”

– Archivist Librarian

– e-Resources Librarian

Almost all of these positions were created to fill existing needs, not merely replace existing individuals.  They are reflective of our future direction with a strong emphasis on technology and partnerships.

Providing additional training for existing staff

We also recognized a need to provide training for the existing staff to update their skills, particularly in the area of “web 2.0”.  Amanda Etches-Johnson and the Emerging Technologies Group put together “Learning 2.0 @ Mac”, “a hands-on, immersive learning program that provides an opportunity to explore Web 2.0 tools and the impact these tools are having on libraries & library service”.   This was a “twelve step” program during which participants made use of freely available tools for blogging, social bookmarking, wikis, etc.  Participants were provided with the training and the work time to explore the tool and consider the ways in which it could be used in our library. As a result, most staff now have blogs, Facebook sites, etc.  More about the program can be found at:  http://macetg.wordpress.com/about-learning-20-mac/

In general, what we have tried to accomplish in designing our new organization is hiring for new skills but also acknowledging existing staff needs by developing a highly engaging training program.    This Friday we begin a strategic planning exercise that will help us identify where we go from here.  For more information you can continue to monitor this blog or my personal blog at ulatmac.wordpress.com

Articles, User Experiences

The Library As The Experience…But It Must Work

Leave a comment

A good user experience is memorable. A memorable experience is one that induces people to return again and again so they can recapture that experience. Think of any service or retail operation that provides a great user experience, and its likely they thrive on legions of repeat customers. As I contemplate what a library user experience really is or should be, I have struggled to imagine what would make it truly memorable. Would it be the individuals working at the library, and their provision of great customer service? Perhaps providing access to materials that are difficult to find would be memorable. Let’s face it. Going to the library is hardly a trip to DisneyWorld or Las Vegas, two destinations known for providing the kinds of user experiences that people crave. On the other hand Pike’s Fish Market is one of the best known tourist attractions in Seattle, and all they do is, well, sell fish. But it’s how they sell the fish, and the unique experience people get when they visit or buy fish there.

When I first began exploring design thinking and user experiences I imagined that libraries would need to do something particularly special in order to create a great library user experience. But a recent article by Peter Merholz at Core77 is encouraging me rethink my conceptualization of a great library experience. In a post titled “Experience IS the Product…and the Only Thing Users Care About“, Merholz returns to 1888, and he recounts the work of George Eastman to market consumer photography. There’s no denying that the early Kodak camera was simple in design and operation, but Eastman didn’t market the device. Rather, he marketed the promise of an experience. The focus was on the simple pleasure of capturing a moment in time. Eastman did the rest. Merholz asks: Why is it that what Eastman figured out over 100 years ago seems forgotten today. Why do so few products seem concerned with how they fit into the lives of their customers.

This leads me to believe that libraries may only need to give their users an experience that they can’t get elsewhere, and that our experience has to blend into the lives of our users. We have to get beyond the technology, and focus on the experience people are having in our libraries and when they use our virtual electronic resources. Getting help from a skilled reference librarian can be a unique experience that can blend into the life of the user. In public libraries storytelling hours could certainly be a memorable experience for parents and their children. Delving into shelves of historic print journals and making serendipitous discoveries is something you can only do at a library.

So perhaps what we need to do is focus on the simple experiences, memorable ones that perhaps only libraries can offer. But in order for these user interactions to shift into the realm of experience whatever we do or offer, any of our services, must work. If the services are broken, if they are not working to high standards of quality, then no user will have that great library user experience we seek to provide. What can help? Merholz suggests an “experience strategy”. We have stategic plans, but few libraries have an experience strategy. The experience strategy is “a clearly articulated touchstone that influences all the decisions made about technology, features, and interfaces.” We should use the experience strategy as an approach to better acknowledge what it is that we can do to develop the right sort of experience.

Creativity & Innovation

Applied Prototyping: designing for buy-in

1 Comment

A quick comment on prototyping.  I’ve found this to be a useful technique when presenting new ideas. It’s one thing to sit around in a committee and intellectualize, but it is very different when you have a model to work with.

I experienced this first hand when trying to launch a reference desk wiki. I presented the idea (with just words) at a meeting and received blank stares. A few months later I demonstrated a PB Wiki with actual content and received more enthusiasm. However it didn’t take off as I had hoped. People bought into the idea, but the follow through was absent. A year later I’m trying again, but this time ramping it up by trying to pull in several departments to raise the stature and value. We’re going to demo “homegrown” software created by campus IT, provide a flowchart illustrating the concept, and offer examples of content that are linked to actual needs. Hopefully by providing a prototype it will communicate the purpose, and staff members will feel that they can contribute, rather than just saying here’s what we’re going to do now. We’re seeking a conversation rather than just issuing commands.

When I speak with librarians who are excited about new social technology, they often mention the roadblocks they encounter. The best advice I can give is to use prototyping. Build a proof-of-concept, test it with a few users, and then present it to the powers-that-be. Instead of giving them the chance to shoot down your idea, let them see it first hand, educate them about it, and show them see how it can be adapted. The secret is user needs—if you can demonstrate how your idea addresses a patron (or staff) need then you’ll have greater chance of success.

I feel that I have benefited from leadership that doesn’t always say YES or NO right away, but asks for more. My Admin forces me to flush out ideas before they will commit and this encourages me to be more creative or at least more through. Prototyping helps other people to understand your vision, but also forces you to figure it out more yourself.

Books, Design Thinking

Academic Librarianship By Design

Leave a comment

That’s the title of the book written by myself and fellow DBL blogger John Shank. The official title is Academic Librarianship by Design: A Blended Librarian’s Guide to the Tools and Techniques. The book was recently released by the publisher, American Library Association Editions. In fact, we didn’t expect the book to become available until sometime in July or August. So I was quite surprised to find it in the ALA Bookstore at the annual ALA conference in Washington, DC last week. Here is a photo of a stack of volumes waiting to be purchased.

design book

The book has three general sections. In chapters one through four we lay out the foundations of design thinking and how it can be practically applied for the practice of academic librarianship (much of it could be applicable to other sectors of librarianship as well). Chapter one is an overview of Blended Librarianship. Chapter two provides an overview of design thinking and connects it to Blended Librarianship. Chapter three examines instructional design using ADDIE as the main discussion topic, but we also introduce our own model called BLAAM (Blended Librarians’ Adapted ADDIE Model). Chapter four, concludes section one, with a discussion of collaboration with faculty and other academic support professionals, and how it can be enhanced through design thinking.

The second part introduces more practical applications for design thinking through the framework of Blended Librarianship. Chapter five looks at ways in which the academic library can be integrated into courseware, and introduces the A_FLIP (Administrator, Librarian, Faculty Instructional Partnership) model. Chapter six introduces LTAs (Low Threshold Applications) and explains how they can be used to further collaboration with faculty. Chapter seven covers the use of digital learning materials in integrating the library into the teaching and learning process.

The final section contains just two chapters, and brings the book to a close by suggesting further steps for incorporating design thinking into practice. Chapter eight introduces and explores the Blended Librarians Online Learning Community where interested parties can further explore these ideas. Chapter nine examines current socio-technology trends that are impacting on the information world and user behavior, and introduces strategies for designing better libraries and better library user experiences.

We began writing the book in January 2006 with the idea of building on our knowledge of blended librarianship (a way to better integrate the library into teaching and learning as well as enhance collaboration with faculty and others in higher education). We sought to further explore design thinking and how it could be used to improve library services. As our enthusiasm for this topic grew we wanted to develop on ongoing outlet for discussing design thinking and its applications for designing better libraries. That’s where this blog comes into the picture. Since we completed the manuscript in October 2006 we’ve learned a good deal more about design thinking and how it can be applied to improve our libraries and the experiences our user communities get when they use them. We intend to keep sharing what we discover right here. We look forward to learning more from you as well.

Articles

Latest IN Looks At Innovation

Leave a comment

The June 11, 2007 issue of BusinessWeek features the latest installment of IN (Inside Innovation), a special section dedicated to articles about innovation, design, creativity, and more. Articles in this special supplement to BusinessWeek include a look at the tension between efficiency and creativity at 3M, how companies are creating secure environments in virtual worlds, the impact of six sigma on innovation, and some re-design stories.

Those interested in keeping track of activity in social networks will find two charts of interest. One graphic shows that while the use of social networks and media is growing rapidly (an increase of 668% in web traffic at these sites in the past year) very few users actually create content. Another graphic illustrates what different categories of people are doing (creators, commentors, collectors, etc.)  in social networks and breaks down the participants by age group. Those under 26 (young teens, youth and genY) are the biggest contributors – no surprise there.

Design Thinking

Illustrating The User-Centered Design Process

Leave a comment

It always great to come across a well-designed graphic that clearly articulates a process that might other take some time to explain. I discovered such a graphic just recently at a conference (LACUNY) in New York City, and that it nicely captured a design process resonated with me. I saw this during a presentation by Nancy Foster and David Lindahl from the University of Rochester. More details on their presentation can be found here.

 U of Rochester Slide

The chart presents the core elements of the design-thinking process. It begins with empathic research designed to learn more about the users and how they use and think about the services and resources of the library. Next the teams analyze their data and brainstorm ideas about ways to resolve learning problems. Study subjects may be asked to perform co-design tasks in which they use pictures or objects to express their ideas. Then the teams will develop and prototype different solutions.

The chart offers a view of a team process – and how such a team might be organized – for design projects. Many thanks to Nancy Foster and David Lindahl (creator of the slide) for providing it and granting permission to reproduce it here for you.

User Experiences

Coping With The Features Conundrum

3 Comments

Presenting too many features to users is recognized as a problem in the age of the user experience. According to Adreas Pfeiffer in an article titled “Features Don’t Matter Anymore“, what users really want is simplicity, not features. This can be a real challenge for libraries seeking to design a better user experience because many of our resources are feature laden products that ultimately overwhelm and confuse the end user – a definite problem in the age of user experience.

In a new article by James Surowiecki, of wisdom of the crowd fame, he discusses what I would call the features conundrum. In an article titled “Feature Presentation” he explores the difficulties of meeting consumer expectations. The challenge is that “although consumers find overloaded gadgets unmanageable, they also find them attractive.” When given choices of varying products consumers will go for the ones with the most features. It appears they want to have their cake (features) and eat it too (simplicity).

But here’s something of interest for librarians who want to provide better user experiences. Surowiecki writes that “as buyers, users want all the bells and whistles, but as users they want something clear and simple.” So since we work with “users’ rather than “buyers” it may be that our focus should be on simplicity rather than the features. Or we may need to strategically identify features that have value that will be immediately obvious to users. Whatever we do and whatever balance we may try to create in developing a better library user experience, it just may be that “even when you give consumers what they want they can still end up hating you for it.”

Events, Uncategorized

Tune In To A Live Web Program On The Technology Ratchet And Design Thinking

Leave a comment

Sorry for this bit of self-promotion, but perhaps some DBL readers may wish to take advantage of a presentation I’ll be giving tomorrow at the LACUNY conference at Baruch College in New York City. They plan to stream the presentation live on the web (how well that will work I have no idea). The title of the presentation is “Reversing the Technology Ratchet: Using Design Thinking to Align Hi-Tech and Hi-Touch”. The focus of their one-day program is hi-tech versus hi-touch. I’ll be talking about the pressures to implement new technologies in the library, what design thinking can offer, and how it might help to give librarians a better way to balance hi-tech and hi-touch. You can find a description here. To get to the streaming web broadcast at 9:15 am (EST) go to: http://media.baruch.cuny.edu/html/live/ . If you are able to tune in I hope you find it a worthwhile presentation.

I don’t know if they plan to archive the presentation for those who are busy tomorrow, but if I get information on that I’ll share it as a comment to this post.

Articles, Creativity & Innovation, Design Thinking

An Approach to Customer-Centric Innovation

3 Comments

Generating innovative ideas is imperative for the survival and growth of any organization, including libraries. However, those ideas are only worthwhile insofar as customers value them. Authors Larry Seldon and Ian C. MacMillan propose a process of customer research and development (R&D) that results in products and services that directly address customer needs. Their HBR article, Manage Customer-Centric Innovation – Systematically addresses the “growth gap” that results when R&D is far removed from customer and investor support.

The solution for more relevant innovations, as they see it, is a process they call “customer-centric innovation” or CCI. This is a growth strategy as well, since the process results in an extension of the consumer base as well as product offerings. The process consists of 3 phases:

Phase 1: Establish and develop the core

In this phase, the focus is on understanding current customers better and developing a value proposition for them. The authors define the value proposition as,

“the complete customer experience, including products, services, and any interaction with the company.”

In the authors’ example of how one company achieved this, designers applied ethnographic research to understand the exact relationship between their product (luggage) and their current customer base of male frequent business air travelers.

Phase 2: Extend (2a: Extend Capabilities; 2b: Extend Segments)

Extend Capabilities

Here, innovators need to devise the resources and mechanisms for filling the needs identified in Phase 1. Essentially, this phase ensures that the firm is keeping its core segment happy.

Extend Segments

In the process of completing Phase 1, researchers should seek other customer segments who could benefit from them their offerings. These segments have similar needs to those in the core segment, but their needs are different enough to justify modifications to offerings using the firm’s existing resources.

Phase 3: Stretch (3a: Stretch Capabilities; 3b: Stretch Segments)

In my view, this is the phase where innovators leave familiar territory for the unknown, and where greater risk enters the process.

Stretch Capabilities
New capabilities are developed to attend to various needs of existing segments as well as new segments.

Stretch Segments
Here, the organization attempts to find segments unrelated to the core who can benefit from existing offerings.

In this CCI model, a deep understanding of current customers and abilities forms the basis of growth in two arenas: what the organization is able to do and who it’s able to do it for.

There are three other key components to a successful CCI. First, frontline employees MUST be participants in the R&D. As the authors put it,

“Our experience shows that the only way to sustain customer R&D is by putting customer-facing employees behind the wheel.”

They mention numerous companies that do so successfully, including Best Buy which has 750 outlets designated as Customer Centricity stores. In these stores, frontline employees are free to experiment with marketing tactics like signage, product groupings, and displays to determine what effect these changes have on customers’ behaviors. The result has been sales growth that is double that of the rest of the stores, according to the authors.

Secondly, organizations must retain a defensive posture. In doing so, they continually scan for changes in customer expectations, technology, and other possible disruptions. The authors insist,

“Customer R&D’s mission is to know more about the company’s existing customers than anyone else on the planet and to ensure that the company is strategically and operationally prepared to preempt any competitor’s move.”

Finally, did I mention that CCI should involve customers too? Not just observing customers, but bringing them into the R&D process as co-innovators. One company mentioned in the article uses an online panel of thousands of customers as sounding boards for new projects.

What does this mean for libraries?

There are a number of key points I took away from this article as it relates to library work:

  • Managers must put frontline staff in charge of innovation. The innovation process is not a top-down approach. If anything, it’s a grassroots effort. Internal structures may need to be realigned so as to empower employees and entrench innovation as a part of doing business.
  • Innovation begins here and now. No library can expect to add new services or attract new patrons without first being able to identify, understand, and serve existing ones. The innovation process begins with taking stock and knowing your patrons and their needs at a level of detail unmatched by anyone else.
  • Instability is the only way to stay safe. If we’re not scanning the horizon for new and better ways of serving patrons, we’re vulnerable to competitive threats. Experimentation and risk-taking, though possibly disruptive, are healthy and the basis for successful, meaningful growth.
  • Patrons are innovation partners. To get to know our patrons better than anyone else, we need reach out to them as well as bring them into our organization as partners. The authors of the CCI article take customer involvement a step further:

“The firm should institutionalize customer centricity. This is accomplished by making the customer segments the basic business unites of the company; that is, organizing by customer segment rather than by product, geography, or function.”

In this way of thinking, we’re not only in business for our patrons, they quite literally ARE our business.

[This article can be found in the Harvard Business Review, April 1, 2006, p. 108-116.]

Design Thinking, Uncategorized

The Risky Business Of Design

Leave a comment

I’ve been following Metacool, the blog of Diego Rodriguez, for a while now, and he always comes up with interesting resources. Rodriguez is a designer for IDEO. He seems to “get” design thinking, and is adept at explaining how it is applied in design work. But just lately I’ve been discovering some of his articles as well. The latest one I’ve come across is in a must read magazine for design thinkers – the Rotman Magazine. The Rotman Business School at the University of Toronto is one of the leading schools at integrating design into the study of business.

This new Rodriguez article (co-authored with Ryan Jacoby) is titled “Embracing Risk to Learn, Grow and Innovate” (go to page 57 in your browser to get to the article which is page 54 in the magazine). In this article the authors “set out to understand how designers approach risk”. What they find is that designers do have a somewhat unique way of looking at risk. Rather than perceiving risk as a downside to taking action, they see risk as an upside for opportunity. They find that “if the risk isn’t great enough designers might well ask theyselves why bother?”. Here are the key observations made about the designer’s approach to risk-taking:

1) Designers don’t seek to eliminate risk; they embrace and even amplify it. Design thinkers actively seek out failures knowing that what they learn will put them ahead in the long run.

2) Designers take risks to learn. As one designer interviewed for the article is quoted saying “If I’m not taking risks, I feel uncomfortable because I’m not learning.”

3) Designers embrace risk but their process of thinking keeps risk manageable. Yes, designers like to take risks but to an extent they know their way of thinking keeps things from getting out of control. There are several reasons:

   a) empathic design – the more you understand the people who will be your customers the less likely any product introduced to them will fail.

   b) prototyping – with its process of seeking feedback and testing multiple iterations of products the design thinking approach reduces the chance something will fail.

   c) storytelling – simple, emotional, concrete stories help reduce risk by allowing good communication that makes sure all parties are on the same page.

In closing out the article Rodriguez and Jacoby provide some ideas for using design thinking to deal with risk in more productive ways. These include emphasizing desirablity, acting on one’s informed intuition, prototying – and then prototyping some more, think big but start out small, treat money as a positive constraint and seek challenges. Each is proposed to eliminate risk by mitigating it. As they say in conclusion, “We can’t all be designers, but we can use aspects of design thinking in our lives to embrace, amplify and mitigate risk in order to create lasting value.”