Free Beer or Kittens?

Freeware isn’t free. Nor is open source software. Yet, I often use those terms in describing social software solutions to libraries as cost-effective communication, marketing, or customer service tools for their libraries. I (as well as others) am intrigued by the implementation of open source library automation software by some pioneering library system, most notably the Georgia PINES (Public Information Network for Electronic Services) library system, which migrated in September 2006 from a commercial ILS system to an in-house developed, open-source platform, named “Evergreen.”

Wow, it’s so cool to be able to access or download software like Blogger or pbwiki (“make a free wiki as easily as a peanut butter sandwich”) and in a short time display a product that simulates the online presence of big library technology gurus. Trouble is, we’re seldom cognizant of the true cost in development and customization time involved in getting the product on the virtual street.

Open source software refers to an application that is derived from a freely accessed basic code and developed through a collaborative effort by multiple users in an environment dispersed both through time and space. Note: no record is kept of the value of the time of all those IT gurus (not insignificant).

Karen Schneider draws a really relevant metaphor in her posting on ALA TechSource, IT and Sympathy.

. . . remember nothing is “free,” even if it didn’t come with a price tag. Second Life isn’t “free.” Instant messaging isn’t “free.” WordPress isn’t “free.” (In fact, that sucking sound you hear may be your RSS feeds dragging down that server hosting your blogs.) Or, more correctly, all of these technologies are “free” as in “free kittens,” not free as in “free beer.” They come with maintenance and deployment issues, from opening ports on a secure network, to how much bandwidth they will use, to how much time IT personnel need to devote to deploying and maintaining the “free” software.

Annual evaluations

We’re in the annual employee evaluation season at MPOW — a time when I would readily pack up and go somewhere else. I wish that we could give everyone a gold star and a raise and go on with our busy days that never have enough hours in them to accomplish what we have to do.

I started out my adult career life as a teacher, and I quickly learned that my toughest times were spent not with the middle-schoolers, but rather in parent-teacher conferences. I never really had any bad experiences, but the whole time of meeting with the kids’ parents was exhausting. Then I became a parent, and found out that parent-teacher night was just as draining on the other side of the table.

This whole business about accountability is built into our culture. My current organization has a merit-based pay raise system. Indeed, most of my career employers have had some sort of financial incentive tied to someone else’s opinion of how effective my work efforts have been. As a supervisor, it’s humbling to be thus entrusted. When I worked for the Air Force, the evaluations I wrote had a direct relationship to promotion or possibly the end of a career. Sort of brought to mind admonitions about “judging not” and “lest you be judged.”

This question was in the “Working Q & A ” section of this morning’s Pioneer Press: “I have a star employee. She is motivated, gets her work done quickly and doesn’t seem to need my guidance. Am I breaking some rule of good management by letting her work largely on her own?” The columnist’s answer somewhat surprised me; she said that it’s even more important to manage star performers, since they want to know that they have a boss who’s looking out for them and setting them up for continued success.

Colleague Tom Shaughnessy, Metronet Library Director, wrote a very insightful piece in which he uses the terms “review” and “root canal’ in the same sentence. He then goes on and makes a good point: “Some HR experts have argued that less emphasis should be placed on looking backward and more on improving future performance.” I like that approach – although Tom does close the post by saying he’s still searching for a better way after 30 years, and solicits opinions from others. And incidentally, he’s gotten no comments.

For all my kvetching . . . I think the evaluation process is important. I would much rather work in an organization that evaluates, than one that does not. For if an organization does not step back and assess its most important resource – its people – it does not truly value them. And I truly do strive that the evaluations I give have no surprises (as I long ago learned in Air Force civilian personnel training). The time to deal with problems is when they happen, and the time to celebrate successes is as often as possible. The annual evaluation process just brings it all together, and sets goals for the future.

Dempsey on “why we need libraries”

Kathy Dempsey, editor in chief of Computers in Libraries posted this to the PR Talk listserv this morning: posted here with Kathy’s permission

. . . when someone wonders why America still bothers with libraries, refer the un– informed person to Bill Gates. you have to admit, he’s one of the country’s richest and, likely, smartest men. so if libraries are useless, why does Gates continue to support them with millions of dollars? if he sees that much value in them, they must be worthwhile, and still necessary, right? especially considering Gates is all about technology! yet he champions libraries and helps bring them up-to-speed technically. therefore they must still be worth using.

Kathy also recommended an article in Educause Review, If the Academic Library Ceased to Exist,Would We Have to Invent It? by Lynn Scott Cochrane, Director of Libraries at Denison University. It could apply to other types of libraries, as well. Ms Cochran relates a fictitious college which quit supporting the collections and staff of the library, and instead gave each student the prorated amount of money spent on their behalf for the library – $1,230. The college did leave the library doors open, without management or staff and only kept a cleaning service.

The article relates how a typical student spent their money and how inadequate other sources of information were, the public library with its typical collection or a nearby academic college which had made a similar decision regarding funding. It reminds me of the disturbing trend I’m seeing in the libraries I serve where funding is cut by cities, counties, boards, administrators, etc. with the rationale that the patron or student can just go use other libraries in the community. Situations like this are really happening — such as the case in Jackson County Oregon, where all 15 libraries are closing at the end of their normal business day on April 6th. See my posting on SELCO Librarian, 10 Reasons for Public Libraries.