[WEB4LIB] Re: Outsourcing virtual reference?

[Dan Lester]

Saturday, December 7, 2002, 7:43:13 AM, you wrote:

RT> 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. 
RT> Robert


RT> 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.

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

Contracts and evaluation, the same as I've said for a great many of
your objections.

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

Same answer as above.

RT> 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.

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.

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

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.  Those who wish to get off into
sociological theory are welcome to do so, but quite simply all
organisms and organizations want to survive and grow.

 
RT> 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.

RT> Realistically, what contract could guarantee against that happening?

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).

RT> How would you know it was happening anyway if there are no accountability
RT> measures in place?

As noted multiple times, you don't have a decent contract if it
doesn't have accountability in it.  I'm sure neither you nor I would
permit a braindead contract.

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.

RT> 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.

RT> Doctors, attorneys, librarians are degreed professionals.

Exactly.

RT> My point was that what happens to the query if the vendor cannot answer it?

What happens when I'm referred to a physician who can't handle my
problem?  I'm either referred to another, or I make the choice myself
to seek another.

RT> If it's as you said, the question returns to the home
RT> library, then fine.  But the point of this exercise was to outsource
RT> virtual reference -- to send questions to third parties for answers.

I don't know of any service that is purely outsourced.  Most libraries
with one or more book or serials dealers will still handle some by direct
subscription or order, for example.  Quite simply, there are some
titles that vendors can't or won't handle, and it would be the same
with reference.

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.

RT> 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?

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.

RT>  At libraries, patrons should
RT> be able to assume their personal information (which NYS law says
RT> includes queries) will remain confidential not be shared with third
RT> parties (e.g. vendors).

I don't know NY law, but I can assure you that the vast majority of
laws cover those who have appropriate need to know.  If the vendor who
comes in to solve some problem on a database sees sensitive
information as a part of doing his job, then he's bound by the same
law and regulations.  If the military can contract Top Secret and
higher levels of security to vendors, then it shouldn't be beyond
librarians to handle the same.

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

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

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

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.  A great many military libraries
are staffed and managed by vendors.  Does it really matter to you that
they're working for a company instead of the government?  Having the
work outsourced saves money for the military.

RT> At least the "worst librarian," as you put it, still has experience,
RT> likely some knowledge of locally relevant resources (which can become
RT> a big issue as you've agreed),

Yes, some questions, as noted above, will need to be handled locally.
This same thing happens with the cooperative eref services that
libraries have formed. If I join with Yale and Hawaii to do virtual
reference, I'd expect that some questions about Boise that go to one
of my partners will get bounced back to me.

RT> and above all a
RT> professional right to be behind the reference desk and attempt to
RT> answer questions.  Stick any random person there and I'm not sure
RT> it's the same.

The librarians employed by the vendor aren't random persons.  They're
the best librarians they can find.

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

Once again, the employees of the contracting firm ARE LIBRARIANS, and
probably better than the average in most of our libraries.

RT> No, here I was considering smaller libraries who are not open all day long.
RT> Virtual reference services could be open anytime, maybe 24/7, which might
RT> create problems with some patrons who
RT> suddenly think the library (not the vendor) is open when it is not and
RT> then get frustrated or angry when they cannot contact or visit their
RT> physical library.

No matter what we do, or don't do, there will always be some
disappointed, confused, stupid, or angry patrons.  I'm not willing to
reduce, or refuse to expand, service to the majority because of a few
who have problems.


RT> 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)

RT> That they probably wouldn't care is a problem:  people should know --
RT> should be educated to know -- there's a difference between getting
RT> information from third parties with potential commercial
RT> interests

This is just one of hundreds of things that the masses SHOULD care
about. It is also a problem that will never be solved.  The day it is
solved we'll have no more urban legends.  Wouldn't that be boring?

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

I didn't suggest that librarians don't care.  That's why you would
contract with a high quality source if you were contracting your
virtual ref or any other services.

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

Well, y'all made some bad choices. Such things happen.  I've never
suggested that the world is perfect, or would be in any possible
future.

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

I continue to be amazed by your unwillingness to believe that any
company could ever handle the standard business and technological
procedures listed above.  They happen every day, and could certainly
work successfully in other environments, at least if they weren't
intentionally sabotaged by librarians who wanted the system to fail.

>> 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> Exactly my point.

Thus, if they can justify it, they'll outsource their virtual ref. And
I wouldn't be surprised if many did so.  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.

RT> thing.  Perception issues can come up at budget vote time
RT> for public libraries, and if the perception is that an institution
RT> is no longer capable of fulfilling its mission, maybe the tax payer
RT> votes down a budget.

If an organization is so incompetent that it doesn't deserve to live,
then that'll happen.  It wouldn't be the first time.
 
RT> having potentially untrained strangers recommend information to
RT> the very public that trusts you to provide them with usually
RT> dependable information.

Should George, Karen, and I take offense when we start our company and
you don't hire us for these reasons?

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.

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.


RT> 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.

RT> Commercial
RT> businesses may be altruistic, warm and fuzzy, but that's not really
RT> their primary goal: they have to profit or they don't stay in business.

Just as libraries do, as we've discussed above.  If you can't cut it,
you shouldn't stay in business.

RT> Libraries, being non-profit in their missions and
RT> daily activities do not operate according to corporate agendas.

No, they operate according to board agendas, institutional agendas,
etc. Same stuff, different directors.  Like it or not, a library IS A
BUSINESS.

RT> 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.

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

Great.  If your library system can provide its own 24x7 reference
service, that's great.  Mine can't.  That doesn't mean we will or
won't outsource it.  Actually, we've a grant proposal in the works
that may facilitate several libraries working together to do this. In
the long run that may be good, or it may mean that the service will be
dropped, or that it will be outsourced.  We'll just have to wait and
see.

RT> 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?

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

Not in the cases of some tenured turkeys I've known over the years.
Same for some "tenured" by civil service. Don't take the insult
personally, as I don't imagine you're one of those folks.


RT> 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.


RT> Here's the thing:  why would a library who COULD provide virtual reference
RT> service outsource virtual reference service?  Staffing issues?  If a library
RT> can't afford to hire more staff, then it's
RT> basically a budget issue.  If outsourcing is "cheaper" -- i.e. will cost
RT> less in dollar figures -- then maybe it becomes a valid option for such
RT> a library.

Exactly.  If it is cheaper, then it could well be the right decision.
Or not.

RT> But there are always hidden costs that
RT> don't make it to the budget/stat sheets, the costs of getting the operation
RT> going and sustaining it behind the scenes, the unseen tax it places on an
RT> already taxed system, which may have been already inefficient.

If those aren't also taken into account, then the decision maker and
those doing the background work for him/her haven't done their job.

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.

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

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.
 
RT> 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.

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

Robert, I've never doubted your skills and abilities. The point is
that working for a private, for profit, corporation doesn't in any way
compromise a professional's skills or ethics.

By the way, these are my final comments in this thread.

cheers

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!