RE: [Web4lib] prove that library 2.0 isn´t usele ss

[John Fereira]

At 06:45 PM 11/2/2007, Anderson, Patricia wrote:
>The flaw in this question is the assumption that unless something 
>brings patrons to the physical library it is useless. Gatecounts are 
>a ROI metric whose time is past. There are other ways we can and 
>should be measuring patron engagement with the librarians and the 
>resources provided by the library. For one, I would like to see 
>something that measure the amount of TIME spent in what type of 
>interactions with patrons, rather than numbers of questions 
>answered, just for one.

I would go beyond that.  Is bringing more patrons into the physical 
library for the benefit of the patrons or for the benefit of the 
library?   I would like to see some metrics on how implementing 
Library 2.0 technologies provides a measurable benefit to the 
patrons, and not just benefits that librarians have claimed that 
patrons need.  In other words, I'd like to hear from patrons how the 
use of blogs, rss, and social networking systems have improved their 
overall experience using the library.


>Sorry for turning the question on its head, but I think this really 
>is a "return on investment" question, rather than a Library 2.0 
>question. We have to answer first how we measure ROI, and *then* we 
>can look at how Library 2.0 and social technologies impact on that.

To do that a better definition of ROI is required.  What exactly is 
the return?  Libraries are essentially a services oriented 
"business".  Does Library 2.0 provide demand driven services or 
supply driven services? Unless patrons are saying, "Gee, I would use 
the library a lot more often if only it had a presence in Second 
Life", creating a presence in Second Life is not going to provide a 
ROI that is meaningful to the patrons.


John Fereira
jaf30 at cornell.edu
Ithaca, NY