[WEB4LIB] Re: Outsourcing virtual reference?

[Robert Tiess]

Dan Lester wrote:
> Contracts and evaluation, the same as I've said for a great many of
> your objections.

Hi, Dan.  This might surprise you, but, beyond my full-time library work, I'm also a private contractor on the side.  And I can tell you no contract, however well worded, well intentioned, well executed, could possibly hope to address every single concern I (and I know others on and beyond this list) would have with outsourcing virtual reference. 

You said you were "amazed by [my] unwillingness to believe that any company could ever handle the standard business and technological procedures," and this is not true:  I said "there are many library oriented companies providing excellent services via subscription."  But we cannot say this of all vendors, "we" being those of us in the field who know the poor services we can be stuck with for long periods of time.  I'm amazed you believe a contract could cure everything.

Here's another thing about contract evaluation:  to assure the same quality of service provided in-house is being provided consistently by a remote vendor, that would require rather regular reviews of the vendor's performance.  That is one of the "hidden costs" I was referring to:  something you're outsourcing where you still might need staff to monitor.  That libraries in that scenario are still required to handle customer service issues resulting from poor vendor service is another factor that causes the service, which was supposed to be outsourced (i.e. handled by someone other than in-house librarians), to require support staff to ensure quality.  This isn't a minor issue for small libraries, where staffing is extremely limited.

I'll be happy to respond to some of your points:
 

Dan Lester wrote:
> RT> My point is that, in the end, no contract can resolve the fact that
> RT> libraries and vendors answer to two different masters.
> 
> Wrong.  They both answer to the one master, the library director or
> his/her designees.  And someone working udner a contract is much more
> accountable than the typical civil service employee or tenured
> librarian.  We all know plenty of tenured turkeys, I'm sure.

No, this is wrong:  you're thinking from within the cure-all contract, where the vendor would answer to the library director, or the director is somehow contractually omnipotent.  That's managerial territory.  I'm drawing a difference between librarians answering to directors answering to board members answering to community needs versus vendor employees answering to manager's answering to the company's needs answering to company's financial situation answering to other things like the economy: the library is not motivated by a need for profit, and its operations and goals remain distinct -- distinct in their design and in their achievement -- from that of any commercial company.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> The goals of profits and nonprofits are the same.  They want their
> organization to survive, and by the organization surviving they
> maintaing their jobs and salaries.

Profits and nonprofits are NOT the same, despite of any outward similarity of their respective goals.  Internally, operations in profit organizations differ in key respects from nonprofit organizations.  They fulfill their goals in different ways, and that difference is critical:  it's what determines whether or not a company/organization is profit or nonprofit.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> If you want absolute guarantees, there aren't any in this life. The
> point is you have controls and accountability whether it is a
> commercial or noncommercial organization. And can you really say that
> no librarians are influenced into which journals, databases, or other
> products they buy by the attractive salesperson, the free lunches, how
> they're treated at a conference, and so forth?  Of course you can't.
> And then what about those librarians who may own stock in the company,
> have a family member in it, etc.  (I'm an example of such a potential
> conflict....my son works for a library software and book supplier).


Well, some librarians should reread the ALA's Code of Ethics, which states rather clearly:

   VI. We do not advance private interests at the expense
       of library users, colleagues, or our employing
       institutions. 

AND:


  VII. We distinguish between our personal convictions
       and professional duties and do not allow our
       personal beliefs to interfere with fair
       representation of the aims of our institutions
       or the provision of access to their information
       resources. 

  (source: http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html)


Can we safely assume a vendor would hold to the same code of internal conduct?  I'm not so sure.  This is also what I meant about vendors abiding by their own rules and librarians observing the existing ALA guidelines and their own library's respective codes of conduct.  I don't doubt for a moment there are many good vendors with excellent ethics and service histories.  My concerns are focused on the "what's wrong" aspect of the original question posted.  We're considering the downside of outsourcing virtual reference, are we not?


Dan Lester wrote:
> RT> If there were a way to monitor
> RT> and improve how the vendor handled questions, then this concern might
> RT> be relieved.
> 
> Anything and everything can be monitored and evaluated.


Again, if you opt to monitor everything you're wasting human resources which could have been used to conduct virtual reference service in the first place, which brings me back to my point of doing what you can do if you can do it -- if you DO have the time to monitor vendor performance, then perhaps you have the internal resources to handle virtual reference after all, in which case WHY OUTSOURCE?


Dan Lester wrote:
> RT> Fine, contracts with evaluation; but without continuous evaluation,
> RT> it could be dangerous to presume the vendor is functioning with the same
> RT> degree of thoroughness and professionalism that paid
> RT> library staff would.  Again, well-worded contracts would help but not
> RT> solve everything.  Contracts don't cover subtle qualitative aspects of service.
> 
> And how many "subtle qualitative aspects of service" get evaluated
> every day in your library?  Not many, I'm sure.


I believe evaluation is ongoing in any library.  It's a situation of perpetual refinement:  everyone tries to do a better job, offer better service, access to better sources.  It's an endless fine-tuning in my experience, and I am thankful and honored to know I work with people who actually seem to give a damn about what they do and how they do it, people who work through lunches, go without breaks, voluntarily work unpaid overtime, come in to work unpaid on weekends.  I know this happens in many libraries, and I think that elevates libraries as sources of public service to levels no business, however humanitarian, well staffed, or well operated, can possibly match point for point all year round.  In my experience you just don't get that kind of tireless performance, personal interest, service quality, and dedication with most commercial vendors, where time, in the end, is money, plain and simple.  This is why I personally believe libraries are likelier to handle virtual ref!
erence far better than any third party commercial vendor.  I could be wrong, but that's how I feel based on my experience.


Dan Lester wrote:
> RT> Libraries have to protect patron information.  At Amazon, you opt to
> RT> entrust information.
> 
> In the library you do too.  If you don't want to entrust the reference
> person with information about your health, for example, so that she can
> find you information about your erectile dysfunction problem, then you
> don't have to.

Right, but the librarian is required likely by state law to keep your information confidential.  Commercial services at best offer privacy policies, to which the terms can alter at any time -- such alterations already being agreed to by the consumer as part of the terms of service, which often indicates terms of service can change without notice.  You don't get that volatility of service terms with a library: libraries are REQUIRED, ethically and by law, to protect patrons.  Commercial vendors aren't necessarily.


Dan Lester wrote:
> Of course.  And vendors can be contracted to do the same.  You seem to
> be forgetting that the people doing the eref for a vendor are also
> going to be PROFESSIONAL LIBRARIANS.

You can assure that, for EVERY vendor offering eref services?  Huge assumption.  And by the way, I did state in my previous post that it would be possible professional librarians could be handling queries for the vendors.  That still does not change the fact the service would still be, in the end, a commercial service, to which you took some odd exception.


Dan Lester wrote:
> The librarians employed by the vendor aren't random persons.  They're
> the best librarians they can find.
> ...
> Once again, the employees of the contracting firm ARE LIBRARIANS, and
> probably better than the average in most of our libraries.

These are some vast assumptions you are making.


Dan Lester wrote:
> Just think, Karen Schneider,
> George Porter, a few other list members, and I might just start up
> such a company.  But I'm sure you wouldn't trust us to be competent,
> trustworthy, professional, and affordable.  So it goes.


Don't be ridiculous.  If Karen were on board, many of us on this list would likely subscribe without hesitation if we opted to outsource.  She's a proven leader and innovator in our field, someone who can speak clearly and calmly on many issues important to our profession.  And I'm sure the came could be said of many list members including yourself.


Dan Lester wrote:
> RT> Again, contracts aren't elixirs.  Libraries tolerate a lot of
> RT> inferior performance by vendors, and many libraries have no choice
> RT> because decisions are made not by them but by the overall library
> RT> system.
> 
> Blaming the system doesn't help.  Libraries make choices, whether they
> should be parts of systems, whether the certain contracts can be
> signed, and so forth.  If you make bad choices on any of the above,
> then you need to make further changes.

I am not "blaming the system" or even suggesting the system is blameworthy -- a library system consists of libraries!  Systems enable libraries, particularly smaller libraries, to do and be part of many things through such things as distributed costs and bulk purchases.  Libraries don't decide to join or not to join systems based on an issue such as outsourcing virtual reference.  They do it to reap the numerous benefits the larger system offers, and patrons benefit as well through such things as integrated catalogs, which increase available resources by many times through interlibrary loan services.

There are usually more benefits than detriments in belonging to a system.  The problem is that sometimes systems get stuck with less than spectacular vendors for extended periods of time, and aside from negotiated workarounds occurring usually through the system headquarters, which coordinates directly with vendors, such as article database or OPAC providers, there are situations wherein we must tolerate outages, incompatibilities, and other not-so-insignificant issues, all of which provide ample evidence as to why libraries should not overly rely on any one vendor for a particular service.  As more systems integrate with one another, more technical issues arise and certain problems must be tolerated for the larger benefit of integrating the systems (e.g. ILL processing complications between two systems).


Dan Lester wrote:
> RT> It's not like every library has a single specific attuned
> RT> contract with vendors.  It doesn't work that way in library systems.
> RT> Libraries working individually with vendors can attempt to
> RT> get more customized service, but that is not the standard case in
> RT> library systems where costs are distributed across the system and
> RT> decisions are forcefully made against economic realities.
> 
> Once again, if you've made the choice to give up some of your
> institution's freedom for fiscal reasons, that's your choice. Every
> decision you make in life has tradeoffs.


Who's talking about giving up an institution's freedom?  In a system, licensed databases are typically voted on by key representatives from libraries in the system.  If 7 out of 10 libraries vote to go with Vendor B over Database A, then B wins.  According to your logic, you're telling the 3 libraries who voted for Vendor A "that's your choice."  What I'm saying is that these are the realities of belonging to a system, and so with respect to outsourcing virtual reference you CANNOT accurately, to every last point, account for every possible concern of every library in such as system through a contract, some libraries of which may not even want to participate in the outsourcing scheme.

As trends in libraries point to consolidating libraries into systems and systems into systems we have to pay attention to the impacts such aggregation have on any individual library's capability to satisfy the reference needs of local service populations.  We can't afford to be callous and say "well, every decision has tradeoffs."  Patrons deserve a better thought process and response than that.


Dan Lester wrote:
> >> 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> Offensive???  It's a point of fact: a business is still a business.
> RT> A medical company staffing medical professionals is still a medical
> RT> company.  How is that offensive?  It's a fact.
> 
> Painting all companies with the same brush is no better than painting
> all gays, Catholics, Armenians, or anyone else with the same brush.


This is not "painting every company with the same brush" as you put it -- it's simply stating an object fact, a commercial company is in fact a commercial company, and that could very well be for better or for worse.  Remember most of my original points started with "Vendors may" or "Vendors might" -- there's plenty of room for exception.  Again, as I stated before, "There are many library oriented companies providing excellent services via subscription."  It's assumed in any line of work there are "good," "not so good," and "bad" companies, whatever you want "good" or "bad" to mean (e.g. "good" service or "bad" track record, etc.).  Since the question focused on "what's wrong" (i.e. the potential bad side of this), my responses focused on potential negatives that could arise.

Had the question been "what's RIGHT about outsourcing virtual reference," I could have just as easily come up with many positive things to say about it, because there are in fact reasons why a library might consider outsourcing.  You wrongly assume my thinking on this matter is decided, when in fact it's not.  As I said, I'm also a private contractor and therefore can understand these issues from both sides -- from within and outside of a library.  We have to think of every issue from all sides, which is why I appreciate and respect your own perspective and respectfully disagree with much of what you said based on my experiences working with libraries and vendors.  Experience dictates most of my replies.  Everyone has different experiences and something to contribute to the discussion, so I personally welcome hearing all sides.

My concerns focused on POTENTIALLY bad vendors, not the highest ideal ones you assume every single library would be working with.  My concerns are motivated by the service I want for patrons -- service I would want if I were in their shoes.  Concern, as I see it, is necessary in any major decision that affects services affecting patrons, or any other aspect of a library's ability to provide service.  There should be nothing offensive about the truth.  The original question was posed:  "What's wrong with outsourcing virtual reference services?"  You essentially respond with "nothing's wrong" because you insist a contract would prevent everything that could possibly go wrong from ever happening.  I disagree on the basis that a commercial vendor -- a business (which I do not equate with libraries as you do) MIGHT (i.e THERE MAY BE EXCEPTIONAL VENDORS) not deliver service comparable to what non-profit libraries provide.

My concerns, in response to the original question posed, are based on what I believe are important differences between profit and non-profit organizations.  This is why I see it as necessary not to ignore the fact when you're dealing with a commercial company that it's a company -- awareness of that one simple point would keep you aware of POSSIBLE issues (i.e. issues that MIGHT NOT arise but COULD and so you should plan for them and not pretend they do not exist).  If the answer to the original question posed was in fact "nothing," then this conversation would not exist:  clearly there are issues involved with outsourcing virtual reference, or there would be nothing to debate.  I think it would be a great disservice to patrons if library professionals refused to fully explore the implications of having third parties handle queries, or anything else involving patrons.  Questions should be asked, and no one should be offended by whatever truths arise from such investigations.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> RT> If a library COULD provide virtual reference service, why wouldn't it do
> RT> it itself if money is no object?  If it's not to save money, then what?
> RT> Why hire someone else what you could -- and as I
> RT> see it SHOULD -- be doing?
> 
> I'm sure that in many cases the outside contractor could provide
> better service. I'm not suggesting that would be the case in your own
> library, of course.

So if we're no longer talking about saving money, we're now outsourcing virtual reference because someone could do it better?  That doesn't sound right at all.  Why not outsource all reference if that's the case?  According to your scenario, the vendor supposedly would do a superior job of handling online questions, so why stop at online questions?  Why not outsource entire reference departments?

If time is not an issue, money's not an issue, and space and technological capacity are not issues, what would be the motive to outsource virtual reference?  You now say it's quality -- "the outside contractor could provide better service," and once again I find myself in disagreement with you because you're essentially calling into question the ability of a reference librarian to fulfill her or his primary task.  Going on my experience in libraries, with librarians, and with vendors (and yet again myself as also a private contractor), I would have to say librarians would in almost every case do a superior job over any vendor I have had the pleasure or displeasure of working with.  Again, experience has decided this for me.  Other people might feel differently.


Dan Lester wrote:
> Well, I've been a private contractor.  So has Karen, and I'm sure some
> others on this list.  Just because we want to make a living wage
> doesn't mean we give up our ethics, intelligence, and skills. If that
> were the case, all of the librarians in corporate libraries would be
> pretty useless, as would those working for the contractors for
> military libraries, and others.

Right, and as a private contractor I understand that.  I'm talking about major companies with proven corporate agendas, not individual contractors.  You've tried to shift this discussion on to more personal ground, toward individuals, and I'm saying when it comes to outsourcing virtual reference a library will likely be working with vendors -- companies with numerous employees -- companies which can hire anyone they want to do the job.

A director can interview and hire librarians in the library, but she or he cannot control what happens with a vendor internally; you claim a contract could create that broad power, and we both know otherwise.  No director I know has direct control over a vendor's internal activities.  So I raised accountability issues with regards to this.  Accountability issues don't disappear, not even with the hypothetically perfect contracts you place all your faith in.  Again, I think libraries have to care about who's actually doing the job if outsourcing becomes an option.  There's no harm in being concerned over that point.


Dan Lester wrote:
> The point is that working for a private, for profit,
> corporation doesn't in any way
> compromise a professional's skills or ethics.


I completely agree with you on this point.  People are generally good.  And vendors are generally good: you pay them, they provide a service which may or may not match or exceed your expectations.

When you bring vendors into the intimate realm of reference, you simply need to be aware of the issues it could -- COULD (i.e. not WILL FOR CERTAIN but COULD) -- raise.  Without a full debate of potential negatives and positives, your decision could affect patrons in any number of ways.  Maybe they receive inferior information.  Or maybe, on the other hand, they have positive experiences which somehow condition them to seek out commercial vendors first rather than libraries because those patrons haven't had the pleasure of going to a library because their library simply sent them to someone else for information.  This could work any number of ways, and everything should be considered thoroughly.  It would not be nearly as self-controlled, self-contained, and contractually flawless as you suggest.

We have to care, be aware, be thorough, be involved, exercise healthy skepticism, ask the tough questions, think beyond ourselves, consider alterations in library service as carefully as we can.  Not "have to" because it's simply the right thing to do.  Our very profession tells us in no uncertain terms we must render service the best service possible.  The first part of the ALA Code of Ethics states:

   I. We provide the highest level of service
      to all library users through appropriate
      and usefully organized resources; equitable
      service policies; equitable access; and
      accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses
      to all requests.

  (source: http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html)


"Highest level of service" -- that's no option, that's a mandate.


Take care,
Robert