losing ground

[Howard White]

Please understand that I'm not trying to be critical, but as a technical consultant, I can not say that it is possible to smooth the way for technology. I don't know of any institutions that can afford to train employees to
the level required for most computer technology change. Every estimate I've ever seen on PC training puts the true costs well over $20,000 per user per system.

As a class of users, even the highest paid executives rarely get even a small percentage of their skills and knowledge up dated as technology leaps forward. So how can the rest of the employees hope to receive the necessary training.

Today's, computing technology is not a smooth flowing river for us to be trained to navigate. Today, computer technology is a hundred mile long class five rapid, through shear rock faced canyons. And most of us are in open canoes.

>Two years ago I wrote a short piece for Library Journal, "The Old Guard and
>the New Technology," which echoes bits and pieces of most of the posts on
>this topic (LJ, 3/1/94).  It didn't suggest Sara's good idea of introducing
>new technologies on a trial basis, but it emphasized a couple things my
>experience has since corroborated: the importance of staff training and the
>value of understanding how threatening rapid technological change can be.
>As others have pointed out, plunking computers in front of librarians is
>not a particularly effective means for introducing new technologies.
>Additionally, it can be frightening to find out that the skill set you have
>built your career on is of questionable applicability in the new
>environment.  Quite a bit of the "challenges" you will get towards
>technological change may be related to the natural defenses that kick in
>when people feel devalued or worry that their careers are on the line.
>
>I've learned a couple more things since that LJ column.  First, it can be
>dangerous  when the librarians or other staff with high computer literacy
>inform their peers that the new tools are "easy" and will make their jobs
>better--particularly if there's no effort to get any real feedback. It's
>like telling a new patron that the OPAC is simple to use and then walking
>away--better to say, "this thing is clunky and has some odd quirks, and
>some folks find it really difficult, but this is how to get what you need
>out of it."  Same thing with staff.  Here's an example.  We have one new
>tool, a Windows front end for some data. I personally find it the most
>mystifying software package I have used in ten years, and I have yet to be
>able to use it to answer a reference question, though when it was installed
>I was informed by the installer (a Unix programmer) that it was "easy" and
>"everyone" was using it.  By calling around and emailing other folks, I
>know this is not the case, and I've spoken up on this.  Understandably, not
>too many people are willing to say, "this is too hard"--though sometimes,
>it IS too hard,and libraries need to listen when folks say this,
>particularly if they aren't known for shying from new technologies.
>Throwaway comments such as "this is easy," even when well-intended, can be
>huge turn-offs to folks already feeling intimidated by our new
>environments.
>
>Another issue I'd address now, related to training, is whether the library
>is really providing the tools needed to make this happen.  In one library,
>some time ago, I did a computer survey prior to applying for a grant, and I
>found that the ratio of computers to librarians was 1:7, while the ratio of
>computers to admin wonks was 1:1 or even better.  Well, how are staff
>supposed to learn these skills if they do not have computers to practice
>on?  (How do you learn to drive?  In a car.)  In another survey I found out
>that computers, when available, were located across the room from the
>refernce desks or in some cases in other rooms or buildings.  It should
>come as no surprise that when this was true it was also true that
>librarians were less likely to use the Internet or other automated tools to
>do their jobs.  In one library I'm familiar with, where the reference area
>was not designed by librarians, the librarian has to make the choice to "do
>without" electronic reference tools or to sit with her back to the
>public--and the furniture is bolted to the floor.  The time to identify and
>correct shortfalls and problems such as these, it should go without saying,
>is BEFORE new technologies are introduced.  Yes, that's sometimes not
>possible, but at least we should know what we need to correct.
>
>One of the other things I had to learn through experience is that some
>people are not going to learn, period, and in many cases there is no way we
>can make them do so.   It's interesting that in our profession there are
>many instances where librarians get to choose what they will and will not
>learn--as if the bottom line were showing up and going through the motions,
>not providing public service.  e will be deleted
> identifying the top 15%,
>who will be the trainers' trainers with lots of energy, dedication and
>stamina, but given our profession, there will often be some people--maybe
>we can think of them as the other 15%--who we must route around.  However,
>given the 3 Ts and an A in sufficient quantities (Time, Training, Tools and
>Attitude... something a colonel I admired taught me a long time ago),
>somehow, one way or the other, most of us, I believe, will get there.  We
>must, so we will.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Karen G. Schneider * kgs at bluehighways.com
>Cybrarian * Columnist, American Libraries
>Author, The Internet Access Cookbook (e-mail Neal-Schuman at icm.com)
>These opinions strictly mine!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Howard White, PC Tech Coor., Northeastern University
  Please visit my web site for more information at http://155.33.211.90/