[WEB4LIB] Re: Outsourcing virtual reference?

[Robert Tiess]

Hi, Dan.  Thanks for contributing your point of view, which I appreciate and respect.  I'll just respond to some of your points and quote some of the original text to preserve context.  Thanks.  Robert


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

My point is that maybe they COULDN'T do their job if they didn't have comparable competent and current resources.  How could you be sure of what resources a vendor had access to?  I wouldn't feel comfortable using third parties that might be doing nothing more than running web searches for every query they get.  That's not de facto reference service.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

These were not the vendors I was thinking of; obviously there are many library oriented companies providing excellent services via subscription.  As I indicated in my previous post, there is a distinct difference between a database which has fairly organized and usually peer-reviewed content and relying on people who may not be qualified or capable of answering reference questions.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

My point is that, in the end, no contract can resolve the fact that libraries and vendors answer to two different masters.  Contracts can iron out many differences, but they will not solve everything.  How many vendors have we all had (still have) contracts with who still fail to deliver occasionally or more often than we care to remember?  You know it happens.  Contracts do not make vendors as accountable as in-house library staff.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

Sure, and ads on PBS....  Of course we pay for information.  My "commercial-free" information concern has to do with the possibility that of outsourced virtual reference vendors don't usually, by their very nature, have non-profit goals, as libraries do (e.g. there's a difference between subscription fees and libraries collecting overdue fines).  I don't see that as a minimal or irrelevant issue.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

Realistically, what contract could guarantee against that happening?  How would you know it was happening anyway if there are no accountability measures in place?  If there were a way to monitor and improve how the vendor handled questions, then this concern might be relieved.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.


What contract could possibly dictate the collecting development of a third party vendor?  With regards to the "total of reference" point:  my comments in my original post are specific to outsourced virtual reference and they remain so here.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

Doctors, attorneys, librarians are degreed professionals.  My point was that what happens to the query if the vendor cannot answer it?  If it's as you said, the question returns to the home library, then fine.  But the point of this exercise was to outsource virtual reference -- to send questions to third parties for answers.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.


Fine, contracts with evaluation; but without continuous evaluation, it could be dangerous to presume the vendor is functioning with the same degree of thoroughness and professionalism that paid library staff would.  Again, well-worded contracts would help but not solve everything.  Contracts don't cover subtle qualitative aspects of service.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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?


Who's talking credit cards?  You're talking about buying things from a website.  I'm talking sensitive patron information.  Amazon.com does not have the same service expectations or legal requirements as a library:  Amazon is a business.  Let the buyer beware.  Libraries have to protect patron information.  At Amazon, you opt to entrust information.  At libraries, patrons should be able to assume their personal information (which NYS law says includes queries) will remain confidential not be shared with third parties (e.g. vendors).


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

I think we have to care.  You're assuming all eref systems would be anonymous. Many are not, which opens up new issues if we bring in third parties.  The ALA Code of Ethics states:

  III.  We protect each library user's right
        to privacy and confidentiality with
        respect to information sought or
        received and resources consulted,
        borrowed, acquired or transmitted. 

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


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

At least the "worst librarian," as you put it, still has experience, likely some knowledge of locally relevant resources (which can become a big issue as you've agreed), and above all a professional right to be behind the reference desk and attempt to answer questions.  Stick any random person there and I'm not sure it's the same.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

Health and legal information: physicians and attorneys can prescribe, librarians and vendors cannot.  Would a vendor know not to consult or recommend a particular health site?  Would a vendor exercise the same level of critical thinking and resource selectivity as a librarian?  Librarians usually know how far they can go in terms of recommending resources.  Can we say the same of vendors?  I'm not sure.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.


No, here I was considering smaller libraries who are not open all day long.  Virtual reference services could be open anytime, maybe 24/7, which might create problems with some patrons who suddenly think the library (not the vendor) is open when it is not and then get frustrated or angry when they cannot contact or visit their physical library.  In our local library system we hear a lot of this from patrons whose much smaller libraries are only open a few hours a week, usually when those patrons can't get there; so those patrons come to our library.  If virtual reference is offered as a service of the library, then implementation consistent with existing library services could become a not-so-small issue.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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)

That they probably wouldn't care is a problem:  people should know -- should be educated to know -- there's a difference between getting information from third parties with potential commercial interests -- or doing random web searches or relying on tv for you information -- and consulting librarians, who answer to no corporate influence, yet who might wind up searching the web anyway, yet who wouldn't rely on tv for their information (unless it was the exclusive medium on which the information existed).

I personally feel people need to care more about their information sources.  Once librarians stop caring, then  information chaos becomes inevitable.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

Um, not true:  a big company had us using a particular product that was not what I'd say was in step with web and accessibility standards.  It didn't even work with all major web browsers because of its Java related issues.  This was systemwide situation beyond our control.  This went on for a few years.  They're still in business.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.


Who said libraries couldn't go out of business?  That's not the point here:  if outsourced virtual reference vendors become unstable for whatever reason (like the economy?), libraries relying heavily or exclusively on those companies could set themselves up for problems down the road (like suddenly having to handle eref in-house) if a vendor goes out of business.  This goes toward contingency planning.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.


Of course it makes sense: we're not talking Z39.50 or TCP/IP, we're talking authentication systems (logins, patron accounts, etc.) and security issues (like secure servers).  Standards and protocols don't protect on their own.  They have to implemented properly, and that takes time, planning, orientations, possible network reconfiguration, and likely coordination between libraries, library system headquarters, and library vendors for total integration with existing library services.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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?

Exactly my point.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, but it you can't do fulfill part of your primary duty -- to answer questions (even if they arrive online) -- I think that's a big thing.  Perception issues can come up at budget vote time for public libraries, and if the perception is that an institution is no longer capable of fulfilling its mission, maybe the tax payer votes down a budget.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.


Computer work, training, system maintenance, cataloging, processing, etc.: these are in-house oriented outsourcings.  Reference is public related -- it affects patrons directly at their most sensitive point: their need for information.  Big difference in my mind between having staff trained for OPACs by third parties and having potentially untrained strangers recommend information to the very public that trusts you to provide them with usually dependable information.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

Again, contracts aren't elixirs.  Libraries tolerate a lot of inferior performance by vendors, and many libraries have no choice because decisions are made not by them but by the overall library system.  It's not like every library has a single specific attuned contract with vendors.  It doesn't work that way in library systems.  Libraries working individually with vendors can attempt to get more customized service, but that is not the standard case in library systems where costs are distributed across the system and decisions are forcefully made against economic realities.


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.


Offensive???  It's a point of fact: a business is still a business.  A medical company staffing medical professionals is still a medical company.  How is that offensive?  It's a fact.  Commercial businesses may be altruistic, warm and fuzzy, but that's not really their primary goal: they have to profit or they don't stay in business.  Libraries, being non-profit in their missions and daily activities do not operate according to corporate agendas.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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?

Database changes, system performance, human-powered reference services: different things that cannot be assessed according to one set of criteria.  It's one thing for a database to include or exclude certain titles (like a major full text article database no longer carrying a certain journal), and it's another thing for a third party virtual reference vendor to bring in anyone it wants to do the job.  System performance is a completely other issue that varies library to library, system to system.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.

But my point, in this whole thing, is that if you CAN provide the service, do it, don't outsource it. Remain relevant by providing vital services.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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?


"Real jobs"???  Now that's insulting.


Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.


Here's the thing:  why would a library who COULD provide virtual reference service outsource virtual reference service?  Staffing issues?  If a library can't afford to hire more staff, then it's basically a budget issue.  If outsourcing is "cheaper" -- i.e. will cost less in dollar figures -- then maybe it becomes a valid option for such a library.  But there are always hidden costs that don't make it to the budget/stat sheets, the costs of getting the operation going and sustaining it behind the scenes, the unseen tax it places on an already taxed system, which may have been already inefficient.

If a library COULD provide virtual reference service, why wouldn't it do it itself if money is no object?  If it's not to save money, then what?  Why hire someone else what you could -- and as I see it SHOULD -- be doing?

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> 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
> 
> And all of a sudden it matters who employs the professional librarian?


No, my comments were consistent in delineating differences between libraries (non-profit) staffing librarians and vendors (likely pro-profit) staffing librarians.  Yes, it matters because of all the things I said before.

 
Dan Lester wrote:
> 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.


I work for two libraries actually and freely assist others as well.  I work primarily in a public library, and that keeps it real.  It's also a federal depository.  I deal with and help resolve real library issues every day.  And my value is recognized well beyond the libraries I work for.


Take care,
Robert