Can libraries weather the closing of the digital divide?

I work in a library so I will often relate what we talk about in class to libraries.  Libraries certainly play a part in the digital divide.  They help provide access to those who do not have access.  However, libraries provide a temporary solution, not a permanent one.  The permanent solution, and usually the goal of those addressing the digital divide, is that everyone has the technology to access the internet in their own home.  That solution, however, is well outside the bounds of what libraries do.  Libraries can't provide computers and internet to everyone in their home.  So libraries help bridge the digital divide, but they are not (nor will be) responsible for closing the gap.

That in itself is not my argument, but an assumption of it.  I wondered what would happen to libraries as the digital divide narrows and eventually is gone.  My initial thought was that as more people get computers and internet access in their home the libraries patronage would drop.  That was going to be my argument, but as I started to think of arguments against this idea, I eventually persuaded myself that libraries won't see a substantial drop in patronage as more users gain internet access in their homes.

I'll start with the why someone would think that libraries will lose patrons as they get their own personal internet access:

• Computer and internet usage has become one of the primary services in libraries, particularly to the low-income patrons who do not have personal access.  In fact, 45% of all library patrons use the libraries computers to connect to the internet according a 2010 U.S. IMPACT study on the impact of library computer and internet services.  If all patrons had internet access in their homes, libraries could stand to lose a substantial portion of their users.

Really, that's about it.  It was my initial reaction and so it could be the initial (and perhaps permanent) reaction of others.  But as I began to think about how the library is valuable and researched, I came to a different conclusion:  even if everyone had their own internet access, the library would still be valuable and would not lose substantial patronage.  Here's why:

• The same U.S. IMPACT study also found that of the library users that accessed internet (45% of all users), 75% of them had internet access elsewhere.  Admittedly, elsewhere could be at work or a friends house, but this still shows that people use the library (and its internet access) despite having home connections. Some of the reasons given for this in the study were the increased speed of the library's connection, not having to compete for internet time at home with other, and the library's quiet environment.
• Libraries provide value elsewhere.  Libraries provide a full range of services aside from computer and internet access.  Just because someone doesn't need to use a library computer that doesn't mean they won't use the library at all.
• Libraries can still provide technology value.  Even though users have home computers and internet access they may not have certain hardware or software that the library can provide.  Video editing software, copy machines, and projectors are just a few examples.
• Libraries can (and have been) adapting to user needs to provide value. The digital divide won't disappear overnight, it will be gradual.  Even if it is foreseeable that users will slowly no longer need computer and internet access, libraries can provide services users do need instead.  It wouldn't be the first time libraries have eliminated or severely scaled back services that were no longer in demand (think microfilm, CD-ROM databases)

So I think it's clear that the closing of the digital divide won't spell doom for libraries.  They will however need to be vigilant.  There will probably be a small segment of users who won't see as much value in the library when they gain personal internet access, but the library can mitigate that through other services and developing new services by being continually attuned to user needs.

Innovation and Libraries

I. Reflection:

Last week’s class focused on the concept of innovations.  The word innovation brings to mind high-tech inventions like this transparent smart window.  However, innovations aren’t restricted to just high technology; they can be any new creation like Heinz’s new ketchup packet or Groupon's marketing and discount system.  I was interested to see the different types, or "zones", of innovation: product leadership, customer intimacy, operational excellence, and category renewal.  Discussing specific types of innovations helped me to gain a more focused understanding of innovation instead of the general, fuzzy idea I started with.

One particular idea that stuck with me from the class was that in order for innovations to succeed there must be a system in place to allow ideas to fully develop into innovations.  This idea hit close to home because on several occasions I’ve had workplace ideas that fell flat because of no system for development or implementation in place.  After the weeks lecture I understand how important nurturing ideas can be for innovation and companies in general.  I'll talk more on this in part II of this post.

During the class some examples of innovations were shared and one example I made sure to bookmark for later: the ESP game.  As I mentioned in an earlier post I'm a gaming enthusiast so I was excited to see this innovation in gaming.  The ESP game like all of the seven games from the developer Gwap serve a purpose beyond entertainment.  Each game creates a contest around generating metadata about images, video, and sounds then that metadata is used to improve search engine results.  For example, the ESP game pairs two people together who try to guess tags for a specific image until the two people guess the same tag and the more matches the players can get within the time period the higher the score.  I was aware of the concept of making work into games (and vice versa) and have even had a few ideas on the subject myself, but it's nice to see successful working example.

II. Argument: It is vital for libraries to have an innovation system

Again, one relevant idea from the class that stuck with me was that there has to be a system to develop ideas into innovations.  This concept was brought to light in two videos.  The first video titled "Why 88% of ideas fail to make it to market" highlights the need for a system and discusses why innovations are important to companies:

The second video that was shared details the innovation cycle that helps bring innovation to fruition:

As these videos suggest, innovation and its accompanying system are important to companies.  I feel this is especially so for libraries.  There is a growing sentiment among some that libraries are becoming irrelevant in the face of a growing internet.  One of the key ways to combat this sentiment is to offer new services and products to library patrons -- in other words: innovate.

The way people find and use information is changing.  The OCLC's most recent library perceptions report looks as some of these trends in information consumer technologies.  No surprise: major growth in social networking, mobile phone usage, web searches, e-books.  Libraries should be compelled to help user meet their information needs regardless of the technology used, which means libraries have to adopt new technologies.  It is vital.

As shown in the second video, for innovations to happen there must be a system in place to allow four steps: thinking, sharing, developing, and implementation.  It has been my personal experience that ideas nearly always fail without a similar system.  I work in an academic library and I have ideas from time to time about a new service or new way of doing things that I think is worth sharing.  There are no restrictions on either thinking or sharing where I work, however where the system fails is at development and implementation.  I share ideas that are well received, but often because of lack of funding, time, and in some cases motivation, the idea doesn't go much further.  Ideas do get developed from time to time through meetings or trials, but nearly always fall short of implementation.  There is just no system in place to make all the changes. 

For instance, I had an idea for a new way to do inventory that would  more reliably update bibliographic information and be faster to do.  I shared this idea, it was approved, then I went on to test out how the new system work on a small section of books.  I worked out the details along with concerns and requirements then reported what I found.  Then the idea died because the necessary steps of acquiring the appropriate hardware, communicating with the IT department, and informing/training the staff just didn't happen for whatever reason.  Unfortunately, this scenario gets repeated more often than I would like and sometimes I feel like my institution is falling behind the times.

Libraries that do have a system in place for all four steps of the innovation cycle can generate new innovations that meets users needs and helps the library stay relevant.  Not all innovations will "stick", but many will, and trying new things is the only way to find out what works.

Some may content that it isn't necessary for libraries to innovate, but to adopt the innovations of others.  This may be true for hardware or devices such as iPads or Kindles, but libraries should innovate in service areas.  Some examples may be e-book lending, bike lending, bake pan lending, virtual reference (via Second Life), information commons, and more.

Some may also say that libraries don't need to innovate because libraries are (and should be) about books.  It's true that books are still the libraries primary brand according to the OCLC library perceptions report.  However the report also show a greater reliance on web sources and search engines coupled with high self efficacy concerning finding information.  Unless libraries tap into how people are finding and using information (meaning innovate) they will have to resign themselves to being a leisure reading space, still in danger of becoming irrelevant due to e-books.