[WEB4LIB] Re: Outsourcing virtual reference?

[Dan Lester]

Note that the following are, to a considerable extent, Devil's
Advocate responses.

Friday, December 6, 2002, 5:49:05 PM, you wrote:

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

Key point as stated here, and as elaborated upon by George at Caltech.

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

That isn't a problem as long as the provider is doing his/her job.

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

There's nothing wrong with a profit. If there weren't outfits like the
ILS vendor of your choice, Brodart, Ebsco, Wilson, and publishers,
we'd be in deep yogurt trying to provide information.

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

That's why you write contracts and have measurable deliverables to evaluate.

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

Of course the vendors make money.  So do we every day. And, there's
not much free information that we provide.  We pay for most of it in
one way or another.  And you may have noticed how many people
more-or-less willingly endure commercials to read Time Magazine, watch
West Wing, or use the free version of Eudora et.al.

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

Once again, you have contracts.

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

Once again, write a contract.  Also, I don't believe Bernie or others
have suggested that the outsourced eref be the total of reference
services of the library.

RT> - When the vendor cannot answer a certain question, to whom or what is
RT> the patron referred?

To the librarians at the home library.

RT> Would librarians be comfortable leaving third parties to make
RT> recommendations to further parties?

Why not?  Your doctor recommends that you see another party to handle
a specialized problem.  So does your attorney, etc.

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

Contracts with evaluation.  We're talking about business here.

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

Again, contracts and legal liability cover this. You entrust your
credit card number to Amazon and Joe's Diner, so why not do this?

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

Hey, if they can develop a product from the questions, why do we care?
The patrons aren't being identified.  If they can sell spinoffs, that
will help to keep the costs to us down.  Once again, this type of
cooperation is common in business.

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

Contracts and evaluations.

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

See above.  Plus, the patron walking in the door doesn't have any
control over whether the best or worst librarian is at the desk at
that particular time.  I'm sure we ALL have reference staff who we
wouldn't want helping us, as well as those that we would.

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

Contracts.  Contracts.  Contracts.

RT> - Patrons, expecting the same level of service they are used to
RT> receiving at their libraries, might not have comparable or favorable
RT> experiences with vendors,

They might also have BETTER experiences with the vendors.

RT> - Libraries, realizing they can neither account for or regulate
RT> vendor performance, would likely have to establish disclaimers to
RT> claim no responsibility for information recommended by third
RT> parties (i.e. the vendors).

Most libraries and librarians don't claim responsibility for the
information they provide anyway.  They sure don't offer guarantees any
more than a physician or attorney does.  If you can't control or
regulate vendor performance you need a better manager of the library
or a better attorney writing the contract.

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

We're really starting to grasp at straws, now.  Almost all of the
things you whine about are easily manageable.

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

Why should the patrons care who does it if they get what they need?
They don't question who the information comes from on the TV or the
web, do they?  (Yes, that is a problem, but a different problem)

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

If they can't handle these things, they won't stay in business long.
Contracts, contracts, contracts.

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

And libraries can't go out of business?  Check the recent literature.

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

This makes no sense at all.  We're talking about standard interfaces
and protocols.

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

Well, if they can't justify it, they won't do it, will they?  Why is
this different from any other service the library offers?

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

Exactly.  None of us can render all possible services to all possible
people.  A library already IS a business and we make BUSINESS
DECISIONS every blessed day.  These decisions are made no matter who
is providing the service.

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

And you think that hasn't been done already?  There are many examples.
I'm amazed at anyone would have the idea that something outsourced is
necessarily worse than doing it yourself.  Many libraries outsource
their systems and computer work, their training, their integrated
library system maintenance, their cataloging and processing, and so
forth. There is NO reason that reference should be any different.

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

Any contract worth the paper it is written on has a variety of ways of
handling problems.  Why is this any different than the contract for
database services, processing, building maintenance, or anything else?
If the company that cleans the library isn't doing the job, you get a
different one.

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

All of this has reached the point of being ridiculous and insulting,
despite the cute smileyfaces.

RT> - Even if the vendor staffs professional librarians, it's still a vendor.

If this kind of thing had been written about a gender, a race, a
religion, a handicap, it would be considered offensive.  And it is
here, too.

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

As if the titles in a database were fixed and unchangeable?  As if
system performance might not vary or have problems?

RT> - If you're going to outsource virtual reference, why not just
RT> have patrons subscribe to the vendors directly?  Wouldn't that be
RT> more efficient?  If a library outsources virtual reference to a
RT> third party, doesn't that then make the library the middle-man
RT> and therefore unnecessary/irrelevant?

Maybe so.  And that isn't necessarily bad.

RT>  Do patrons in this setup still need libraries?

Many don't.  And, if we can't provide what the client needs, if we
can't justify our existence, then we shouldn't exist, and won't exist.

RT> Can libraries still justify their existence?

That is yet to be seen.  Some communities are already saying no.  Is
that necessarily bad?  I don't think so.

RT> Or do the vendors eventually become the libraries and we all just
RT> become customers?

Could be.  Of course then some librarians would have to get real jobs
where they do real work and don't have tenure or civil service, and
then they probably wouldn't be librarians any more.  Maybe they could
sling burgers or wait tables?

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

HUH?  Further above you were whining about how the vendors would cost
more.  Now all of a sudden they'll be cheaper?  And I've yet to hear
of a library that didn't try to save money wherever possible.

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

And all of a sudden it matters who employs the professional librarian?

Perhaps you should get a job in a special library, where you'd deal
with these issues on a regular basis.  If you can't prove your value,
both the library and the librarian, you're gone.

dan

-- 
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan at RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com  www.gailndan.com  Stop Global Whining!