Why don’t we get self-service?

I think libraries exist to serve users. Sometimes I’m left wondering.

If it that is the goal, then understanding users and their behavior is critical for us in understanding where we have opportunities. Companies like Google clearly understand this. A Berkery, Noyes report I read stated “At Google] The users are at the very center of the process” almost from the beginning. What’s more these companies and others like them have created a set of expectations among users about how they will be treated, how they will be connected and how they will be involved.”

The same report goes on to describe the key characteristics of the next generation of users. They:

“1. get their information and content online.
2. get their information and content for free.
3. are always connected.
4. are always on.
5. want to find it fast.
6. manage large amounts of content themselves.
7. create, aggregate and customize content themselves.
8. are distributors and marketers.”

At an American Libraries Association Conference, Cathy DeRosa of OCLC did a presentation in which she said that OCLC’s surveys show that:

84% of people start their information searches on the internet.
62% start at Google,
1% start at a library website.

The good news (??), Ms. DeRosa pointed out is that:

Only 10% found the information they needed.
40% of that 10% found it at a library web site!

Combined, that is some pretty startling information. As librarians (and I am one!), it seems like it should be a wake up call. This next generation learns differently than us and they interact, conceptualize, capture and synthesize information in ways that are radically different from the preceding generations.

My generation conceptualized thoughts by consuming information as text and using our brains and imagination to fit the pieces together, to build the models, landscape or scenarios in our head and to derive output from that assembled framework. To change that landscape meant to change our thought pathway and to re-engage in a new conceptualization of whatever model or environment we were moving into. When using our libraries, we did this by building “sets” of information, largely as lists of text, which we then merged, manipulated and narrowed to then become pointers or keys by which to obtain the physical representations and begin the same cycle all over, only with newly captured information. Once obtained, we carefully consumed the materials and blended the resulting memories and thoughts in our brains to develop, and possibly produce, a similar output.

The next generation of users and learners consider this method slow, boring and tedious. Show them a text-box dialogue and watch their faces. This generation expects our systems to do much of this tedious work for them in order to free their minds to think and conceptualize at much higher rates of speed and consumption than the preceding generations. They want the information now, delivered to them quickly, to do with as they see fit.

In large part this is because of computer gaming, which this generation grew up on, and the expectations that have been set in their minds as a result. In that environment, players move fast, very fast, through complex, changing environments, grabbing elements needed and storing them for later use. The player masters a far more complex hand-held device than a simple mouse or keyboard, and can operate it at very high rates of speed to manipulate that environment in which they are functioning. There are new tools and software that will engage them and serve them quickly, IF we’re willing as librarians to use them and remove ourselves from the processes.

Self-service is something information users are very comfortable using. They expect it and they want it. Amazon and E-Bay are just two examples of how users can be allowed to interact with provider services. Libraries, while increasingly catering to this approach within the library, have only scratched the surface of self-service as extended through to the computers or hand-held devices.

Of course, sometimes this can bring costs to libraries. I understand that. Book delivery and interlibrary loan are examples. So, why not let the user decide if the cost is worth it to them? Yes, libraries and librarians have long chosen not to charge for products and services. Does this mean we should deny service? Is that really the better choice? For libraries, for the user?

Some users value convenience and are willing to pay for it. For others, access is more important but cost must be low. Joey Rogers, the former head of Urban Library Council once said (and I’ve quoted her many times) “We have not given people the opportunity to invest their money and buy convenience [such as paying for book delivery]. In many families, there is more money than time.”

Why can’t we understand that there is a difference between charging for base services and charging for convenience?

I’m amazed, sometimes depressed by the fact that when I meet with librarians they seem to be nearly oblivious to all of these facts, trends and overwhelming factual data (many times, generated from inside their own profession, by their own membership organizations). Self-service isn’t some speculative trend, it’s what users are getting from other information suppliers. They expect the same from libraries. We need to make everything accessible and let the users decide what/how information gets used and how it bests serve their needs, gets delivered to them and if speed is critical, if it’s critical enough to pay for the convenience. As librarians, we need to take every opportunity to get out of the way of the users.

Self-service; the users are there. The technology is there. The examples are there. Where are the libraries?