[Web4lib] But can libraries afford failure? [was The UltimateDebate: Do Libraries Innovate" ]

Fri Jun 8 18:05:34 EDT 2007

[Minor philosophical rant on this subject... Get a coffee or some gum.
Or ignore.]

James: You raise a good point. And it turns out that humans are
hard-wired to fear change from a biological perspective. The same parts
of our brain that go, "Ow! That's hot!" are activated when we try to do
things differently. And it's for good reason; evolutionarily speaking,
doing something that you've done before will not kill you. If it was
gonna, it already did. So doing things the same way is advantageous, in
terms of survival.

But let me ask you this question: is your dream for your own life or for
the life of your institution or industry to simply survive? Or would you
rather improve and thrive? Succeed beyond expectations of "not failing?"

For that, you need a change-ready and change-friendly focus. Because
success, as opposed to survival, is a condition that doesn't just rely
on you're efforts, but is dependent on your activities in comparison to
what's going on elsewhere in your environment. And all environments
change.

I mentioned the "Beginner's Mind" before. It's an incredibly important
concept for setting up a sustainable advantage in an environment where
you want to thrive. Why? Because seeing yourself as someone who is
always ready to learn and do new things, and is comfortable with change
will allow you to evaluate more opportunities and areas for improvement.
If you only stick to what you know, your solution sets will be much more
closely bounded.

Innovation doesn't require big money. It requires an attitude.
Specifically, an attitude that says, "I am largely ignorant, yet wish to
know/do more." As soon as you believe that you've found the best
solution, you'll stop asking questions, trying new things and working
with different, interesting people. 

Perceived expertise is the enemy of innovation. Shunryu Suzuki, a zen
priest who wrote on the concept of the Beginner's Mind said, "In the
beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there
are few."

To anyone who says, "We risk our orgainzation's reputation on trying new
things," I would first ask: have you measured and assessed what your
reputation is? Do you know what your customers and partners really think
about you? If all you have is a perception of what your reputation is...
That's fine... but essentially useless from a planning perspective.

>From there, if the answer is, "Yes. We know what our reputation is.
Quantitatively." I would say, "Great!" then ask, "OK. Well do you want
it to improve?"

A new idea may not always be good. But having no new ideas is always
bad.

Innovation, too, need not be jarring or impolite or made with an
assumption that, "The old way is awful! We must stride obnoxiously
forward into the future!" You can innovate to preserve. If changes are
occuring outside your realm of control, and there are things that you
think should remain... You can innovate in order to retain values.  

Innovation is also easier when you don't change goals (at first), but
paths to a goal. There are many ways to solve various puzzles and
challenges. And when you make a point of trying as many solutions as
possible, you will inevitably also end up finding good new goals.

That's it for today. It's Friday at 6pm. I'm going to go innovate some
dinner.  ;-)

- A
Andy Havens
OCLC: Manager, Branding and Creative Services

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Knight, James
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:13 PM
To: web4lib
Subject: [Web4lib] But can libraries afford failure? [was The
UltimateDebate: Do Libraries Innovate" ]

/* my $0.02

Per Tim's and Andy's comments below, a few questions/comments:

Is failure, no matter how humane or inexpensive, an option for libraries
(their staff, directors and technologists) that are still struggling to
carve out an identity and achieve relevance in the information age?

I once proposed to a group of librarians that they adopt a certain cheap
and easy to deploy piece of technology, thus reducing their "cost of
failure" (should the initial deployment not take within their
constituency). At that point, I was reminded by one director that the
library's reputation was at stake, and that failure of this sort could
jeopardize said same with the institution's users and administration.
Failure has consequences beyond improving one's chances for success.

Can innovation take place in a risk- (i.e., failure) averse environment?
Libraries are (historically) process driven institutions. Process and
innovation are difficult to balance in any business. Innovation also
creates chaos; not every institution (especially those with heavy handed
bureaucracies) tolerates disorder and lack of control in its day to day
operation.

Are there other possible reasons libraries have not been the incubators
of technological innovation?

It's not just technology either. Look at the funding issues (requiring
some financial innovation) and debate raised by Steve Coffman several
years ago, and how few libraries have managed to expand beyond the
current tax supported model that keeps so many public libraries afloat
(or not).

The panel might, IMHO, want to consider these questions at its
discussion this summer. 

my $0.02 */

-jk [who wonders if this discussion is being carried on elsewhere]

 --------------------------------------------
James Knight, MLIS
Product Specialist
Wolters Kluwer Health - Medical Research 

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:53:44 -0400
From: "Havens,Andy" <havensa at oclc.org>
Subject: RE: [Web4lib] "The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate" at
	ALAthis	month
To: "Tim Spalding" <tim at librarything.com>,	"web4lib"
	<web4lib at lists.webjunction.org>
Message-ID:

<BEFAD900A34FA54AA723C1CF9DBB063AC4DAA8 at OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

What Tim said.

One of the best presentations I ever heard was given by A.G. Lafley, CEO
of Proctor & Gamble. When asked the secret of P&G's success, he replied
with one word: failure. He then went on to explain that in his industry,
each success requires hundreds if not thousands of failures in order to
identify and, in many cases, invent suitable products for its various
industries. He went on to say that their goal at P&G was to, "Fail
often, as inexpensively and humanely as possible, while tracking and
learning from each failure."

The Beginner's Mind writ large.

- A
Andy Havens
OCLC: Manager, Branding and Creative Services

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Tim Spalding
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 8:09 PM
To: web4lib
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] "The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate" at
ALAthis month

RE: "How do you separate effective innovation from "innovation for
innovation's sake"? It's one thing to be innovative to be trendy, and
quite another thing to be innovative in a way that improves a library's
services."

But this is true in every single field of human endeavor in which
innovation happens! Innovation in the software industry, for example, is
sometimes for the good and sometimes not. What distinguishes libraries
from some other fields are differing attitudes toward the possibility of
failure. In Silicon Alley, having burned through millions of VC money in
a failure is a resume plus, not a minus! Or maybe I should say "risks
leading to failure," since libraries are okay with gradual failures.
That, and finely tuned mechanisms for rewarding good innovation and
killing bad. But maybe that was your point.
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/