[WEB4LIB] Outsourcing virtual reference?

[Robert Tiess]

"Sloan, Bernie" wrote:
> That prompts me to ask an intentionally provocative question:  "What's wrong
> with outsourcing virtual reference services?"


Some possible reasons:

- Vendors might not be based locally and have intimate knowledge of a community, giving them a clear disadvantage when attempting to handle local area interest questions, such as local history, etc.

- Vendors might not have access to licensed databases libraries subscribe to, databases which may contain information a patron needs, such as specific journal articles

- Vendors would likely operate according to business plans, while libraries conduct their operations according to mission statements.  Vendors would likely be commercial (vendors vend!), while libraries are always non-profit.

- Disparities in business plans and mission statements may not be resolvable, setting the stage for such things as conflicts of interest, procedural inconsistencies, and other nightmares

- Libraries, aside from schools/universities, are the last remaining sanctuaries for dependable, commercial-free, publicly accessible information on the planet.  Why the heck would you want to screw that up by bringing in more potentially commercial vendors?

- Vendors may have an interest in promoting certain commercial resources over others, whereas librarians may select resources independent of corporate influence

- Library collections continuously expand and are stocked with current resources chosen for their potential value to the local service population while old resources are weeded regularly; perhaps the same could not be said of a remote vendor's resource base, since the library's collection development policy would not likely cover or guide the vendor's choice of resources.

- When the vendor cannot answer a certain question, to whom or what is the patron referred?  Would librarians be comfortable leaving third parties to make recommendations to further parties?

- Vendors, like volunteers, possibly may not function at the same level of accountability as professional paid library staff members

- Vendors could compile patron information and resell it at a profit as well as raise new ethical and privacy issues which would stand at odds with state law (e.g. NYS Civil Practice Laws and Rules, sec. 4509 - 
http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/publaw/part1/civilpractice.htm)

- Vendors could funnel queries and answers into an internal knowledgebase, which could become the basis for a commercial product in the future, something clearly not mandated in any library mission statement

- Libraries may have little or no quality or technical control over a vendor's activities -- e.g. how a query is answered, how follow-up questions are handled, what resources patrons are referred to, etc.

- Libraries would also likely have little or no control over which employees of a vendor answers the questions, allowing for possibly untrained individuals to handle queries

- Vendors can combine/affiliate with other companies without the library's knowledge and possibly share sensitive information.  What library would want to be part of that kind of scheme?

- There might be potential for miscommunication/a lack of coordination between libraries and vendors, ranging from minor misunderstandings to major mistakes in either expectations or actual service provided. (Sure, this happens within libraries, but accountability, good management, etc. can solve that.)

- Patrons, expecting the same level of service they are used to receiving at their libraries, might not have comparable or favorable experiences with vendors, and yet libraries might have to contend with the backlash of patrons dissatisfied with the vendor's service.

- Libraries, realizing they can neither account for or regulate vendor performance, would likely have to establish disclaimers to claim no responsibility for information recommended by third parties (i.e. the vendors). Wouldn't this reduce the value and dependability of such a proxy service?

- Vendors and library hours of service may differ by a little or a lot, causing potential confusion among patrons and/or problems with library staff.

- Unless the outsourcing were done in a truly seamless fashion, where it looked as if it were in fact coming from the library (or library's website), a second service could create a sort of identity crisis, where folks used to going to the library for dependable information now have to consult Outsource Company X for answers if they go the online route instead.  Patrons are smart and may quickly notice, and question, the use of a vendor.

- This could send potentially negative messages to patrons, maybe something like: if you don't come to the library and see us face-to-face you won't get the full treatment. Talk to our vendor, don't bother us. We're too busy for you digital reference types.

- Vendors may not be cognizant of accessibility issues and other vital things, such as web standards, or if they are they may not observe them because they don't have to.

- Vendors can go out of business, leaving libraries relying on them in virtual limbo.

- Vendors would likely operate outside of the library's network plan, creating potential network interfacing, security, and patron authentication issues

- Public libraries in particular might have a hard time justifying expenditures of outsourcing reference services in smaller service populations/tight budget scenarios

- Outsourcing means you can't or won't do something locally for whatever reason (e.g. budget, staff/time constraints/spatial limitations).  People might interpret outsourcing as an institution's inability to render a particular service.

- Patrons deserve the best possible service libraries can provide.  Any library that cannot perform or strive to perform at that level of public service maybe needs to outsource its management instead.

- In the event a vendor vends poorly (e.g. answers a question insufficiently or incorrectly), what then?  A librarian repeating such mistakes can be spoken to by a superior and corrective measures can be taken.  What if you're locked into a contract with a vendor?  Can you get out of it easily?  What alternative provisions could you make if you had to?

- Customer service issues would eventually arise.  How would they be resolved?  Could they be resolved?

- Digital reference has been charged with being too impersonal; using a third party would be as impersonal as you can get.

- Outsourcing usually involves strangers; libraries tend to be more like community atmospheres.  Can a vendor deliver comparably personable experiences to patrons?

- As I see it, libraries don't need to increase their reliance on vendors; instead, they should try to do as much locally as possible.  Even small libraries are more capable than people are aware of.  My mid-sized local library handles questions from around the world, and many other libraries of relative size or smaller do the same without outsourcing.

- Most vendors I know aren't so smart :-) (they can rarely answer simple questions...)

- Even if the vendor staffs professional librarians, it's still a vendor.  Information by paid subscription is  pretty standard for libraries, but there are notable differences between commercial databases (e.g. full text articles) and outsourcing human-powered reference services: with the former you have a fair idea of what to expect and provide to patrons in terms of content (e.g. journal title lists, thematic content) whereas with the latter you may not know (or ever know)

- Too many patrons already think they don't need libraries because they have Internet access at home, and, as we know better, everything is on the Internet and completely accurate....  Why give them another false reason not to consult libraries directly?

- Would patrons be more or less likely to go to a library that couldn't or wouldn't answer their questions?

- You'd miss out on a lot of funny questions that only seem to come through virtual reference...

- If you're going to outsource virtual reference, why not just have patrons subscribe to the vendors directly?  Wouldn't that be more efficient?  If a library outsources virtual reference to a third party, doesn't that then make the library the middle-man and therefore unnecessary/irrelevant?  Do patrons in this setup still need libraries?  Can libraries still justify their existence?  Or do the vendors eventually become the libraries and we all just become customers?

- Why hire someone to do something you know you will do better and probably cheaper?  Saving a few bucks shouldn't be an option, not for libraries:

Typical reference librarian $30k-45k.  Typical reference book $30-$100.  Integrity of information?  Priceless.  It's been my experience nobody does reference better than a professional librarian :-)

Just some thoughts anyway.
Have a great weekend,

Robert