The Competitive Edge for Libraries

All the survey's say information seekers routinely turn to Google because its fast, simple and familiar. One of the reasons libraries have struggled to provide a definitive role in this new information jungle is their failure to adopt competitive strategies such as simple search results. Today's library users must navigate through a haggard collection of information silos scattered virtually across a website and physically across a building. In addition to selecting a silo the user must recall how to execute the search function for a variety of interfaces, some offering the full content others requiring additional tricks to discover the golden text.

While libraries diligently offer assistance in navigation and continually seek improvement of current information portals and traditional catalogs, much consternation is being wasted when really what we should be doing is uniting behind a common interface and search mechanism for the entirety of a library collection. WorldCat offers the size and scale needed to compete and as Mark Dahl (2009, 7) highlights " With WorldCat.org, OCLC takes a lesson from Google and Amazon and understands that Web scale matters. In order for library content to be noticed on the Web, it needs to be presented by a global player, not in a diluted fashion from thousands of separately managed library catalogs."

By adopting a standard interface such as WorldCat, libraries can offer conventional search features much in the same way as Google and provide well created metadata for everyone on the web Libraries benefit from mimicking strategies of their competitor but at the same time enhancing that which must be their core competency: providing quality descriptive metadata and facilitating understanding of it.

While others may have lost faith in the role of libraries in my own experience I can still identify the necessity and importance of providing access to information and information literacy instruction to the public. There must always be an alternative organization offering access to proprietary information resources and offering assistance in making sense of it all.

Libraries adopting standard virtual spaces and forming networks at the size allowable with today’s technology would mean increased satisfaction rates for constituents and increased buying power with vendors. The ability to provide specialized collections through libraries which are searched again in a familiar manner will also strengthen the competencies of libraries.

Libraries failed to recognize the changing modes of information production and lost their comparative advantages to innovative business models and competencies such as those offered by Google. The slow and at times moralistic fight against adoption of new modes has left the library at a disadvantage. However recognition of core competencies in accordance with the changing information environment could provide the competitive edge libraries need.

Dahl, Mark. 2009. The Evolution of Library Discovery Systems in the Web Environment. Oregon Library Association Quarterly 15(1): 5-9

Libraries and Competitive Intelligence

In my recent class discussion regarding the differences between strategic intelligence, and competitive intelligence, the statement that libraries should act like businesses reminded me of why they are not, but how they can make use of knowledge management tactics for decision-making.

Strategic Intelligence most accurately describes a information related to the plan of action of competitors (i.e. basis for decision-making). Competitive intelligence seems to be a more codified approach to gathering and making-use of information to make one more competitive. Codified in the sense that clear ethics are defined and policies adhering to best practices for CI are implemented. Because strategic intelligence is often invoked in a National security setting, realist principles of behaving dominate at times blurring the boundaries of ethics.

In regards to the library an important reason why it is not run like a business is its role as providing accessing to information. While a public library may supplement its funding through books sales, and community fundraising, decision-making cannot be based on a profit motive. The same is even more true for academic libraries where knowledge generation is the priority. Because places like Barnes and Noble or Blockbuster may at times censor certain materials to acquiesce to shareholders acting like a business is not always desirable. After all a library as an arsenal of liberty cannot be beholden to corporate interests.

A library however can embrace the benefits of CI through understanding market forces and positioning the institution in a favorable manner. An example in which the library world needs to be most aware of the political, social, and economic factors affecting the progress of libraries is evident in the case of Google. Libraries as others have stated, should have long-ago sought to offer an alternative to the dominance of one corporation in control of the worlds information. Libraries have the ability to organize and coordinate efforts to ensure access to information whether it is digital or not. As we move forward academic libraries must be front runners in understanding how information is collected, organized, and decimated as this is their business and must seek to learn from the success of other competitors such as Google.

Librarians must realize it behoves us to market ourselves as information brokers. In addition to fulfilling the role as an alternative to a single corporation providing all access to information, we must realize our importance of information professionals in giving context to and making sense of the information.

Before the onslaught of technology the general public agreed libraries serve the public good by offering this access. This sentiment must be invoked once again to understand the monumentous but essential task of continuing to provide that access as well as making sense of the never-ending information flow.