- Tweets with drupalcamp09 hashtag http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23drupalcamp09 or http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23drupal4lib
- Ustream.tv:
- Drupal4lib camp wiki - http://drupal4libcamp.pbwiki.com/
Friday, February 27, 2009
Drupal4lib camp
You can follow along here:
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Darien Library
A big thank you to the Darien Library & the CT Library Consortium for coordinating a tour of Darien's wonderful new facility on Tuesday (for those of us librarians who hadn't had the opportunity to see it before). (CLC put up a virtual tour via Flickr, btw.) My boss, of course, had been there on the grand opening. I asked him what he'd liked best, assuming it would be something like the RFID for self-check-out & automated check-in with the materials handling system. But he was right on target to say that what he liked the most was the thought process behind the changes made in the new Darien Library.
Here's a slideshow of the CLC virtual tour:
BTW, this is not to say that the old Darien Library wasn't wonderful. In fact, it sounds like it was because the old Darien Library had a staff that was already so centered on their users' needs & desires that the community was supportive enough to create such a great new facility. Positive customer service, cultivation of a lot of goodwill and a number of deep relationships over the years - these things translated into significant funding from the community. Yes, Darien is a well-heeled community, but even so, there are a lot of excellent organizations out there that its citizens could support. Yet the library clearly held such a place in their heart that the library did not even need to partake of state construction grants -- it received that much financial support from its own patrons. This also seems to have given the library some freedom in designing the project. No state funding = no state constraints = fewer bureaucratic hurdles along the way? Just a guess. I actually don't know much about that process, so I may be incorrect, but it seems to be a fair assumption. (And yes, the good people who work the state grants process do so with great efficiency & expertise. I just mean that state processes are necessarily fraught with policies and constraints.)
It's easy to be envious sometimes, but what works better than devoting energy to envy is to see what worked for Darien conceptually and port it to our own environments. We always need an "outlier" library to serve as an example to those of us who work in more conservative surroundings. It's more like an inspiration for all of us. Look at what Darien has done and think of what you can emulate or improve on in your own community. It's not all going to fit in your community the way it does in theirs, anyway. Be creative, up the ante, come up with your own innovations (and yes, it may take a bit more creativity if you have to find ways to innovate with fewer resources behind you, but that will make your achievement even more exciting!)
So what are some of the things I noticed?
Chief among the points of interest for me is something that was not a specifically architectural feature, though it informed all of the architectural features we saw - it was the philosophical underpinnings of the library. Collaboration, transparency, permanence (or should I say sustainability?) were key factors. Even more excitingly from my perspective, Darien has an organizational structure that centers on the user. It has a "user experience design" team, that informs all aspects of the users' experience with the library - on the ground or online. This means that everything - from the self-check-out & self-check-in experiences to the web-based resources, roving reference, organization of the collection into "glades" wherein books on the same subject/topic are shelved together in ways that most people think of (much like the organization of a bookstore), rather than solely being organized via Dewey (or god forbid, LC or Cutter!) Dewey is still on the spines. But below the spine stickers with the broad topical area (e.g., "Home" or "Places"). The User Experience design team keeps the library streamlined - no signage is developed willy nilly. The UX group comes up with the proper means of guiding people through the physical spaces - sometimes, for example, it might be through the use of the many flat screens on the "main street" level's brick pillars that are the equivalent of (dynamic, like today's electronic billboards) the printed signs that libraries have traditionally used, but unlike the printed ones, these are changing all the time, automagically.
The concept of not having a separate "IT" department, as such, but integrating technology into the user experience design team's role (if I understood Jon Blyberg, Louise Berry, and Alan Gray correctly) is really revolutionary. This concept seems almost the opposite of having a "digital branch". Instead, it assumes that all things in the library these days have a digital aspect and thinks about the library at a higher conceptual level, always harkening from the perspective of the user's experience. Because the users' experience of Darien Library is really centered on the physical presence of the library building, particularly now, with the new building, a lot of the efforts made by the UX team at Darien relate to the physical collections and signage. I spend so much time immersed in web usability these days, I hadn't really thought about UX on the physical level (well, also because I have no ability to affect anything re: the physical UX). This way of organizing staff may not be appropriate for all environments, but it should give library administrators pause - give them some space to think more openly about organizational structures. (More on this when I discuss this AM's "where we live" from WNPR on "reorganizing government"...)
Think about the concept of not hiring "catalogers", as such. From the user perspective, as long as the books are findable, the "quality" of the MARC record is of no interest to them. You can't get so enmired in details and traditions that you miss the ultimate outcome. The overt focus on "cataloging" in many libraries may mean losing sight of the forest for the trees. The point of cataloging and classification was always management of the collection and findability. You have a collection of materials. What are they and where are they are the questions you need to be able to answer. Some level of consistency & quality in describing those materials is important, but is a perfect MARC record (is there such a thing) needed?
Reference at point of need is also a key concept here. Armed with a cell phone and a Netbook (ultralight, ultraportable computer that hooks to the internet via wifi) with an "Ask Me" label on it, the reference librarian can bring themselves to the patron. There is also an (impermanent) reference desk available to the librarian in the main reading room. Again, the wifi, the cell phone, the Netbook are all bits of technology, but they are solely in service of the user experience - so this project didn't need to be an "IT" project. It's just the way Darien thinks they can serve their reference users best.
Certainly, the multimedia focus and small business support via the community and conference rooms' setup, the IT labs & videoconferenceing rooms, etc., are all worthy of consideration. There is a teen lounge area with Macs & books, a children's area with everything from program rooms using warmed cork flooring to a Microsoft Surface table for the kids (and their adults) to play with. The "green" aspect of their building is also worth noting. They reclaimed the land that their building is on plus they use geothermal heating and cooling, water-saving measures, and so on.
In summary - yes, it's cool. Go forth, be cool. Innovate. (see the pics from iPhone, such as they are:)
Here's a slideshow of the CLC virtual tour:
BTW, this is not to say that the old Darien Library wasn't wonderful. In fact, it sounds like it was because the old Darien Library had a staff that was already so centered on their users' needs & desires that the community was supportive enough to create such a great new facility. Positive customer service, cultivation of a lot of goodwill and a number of deep relationships over the years - these things translated into significant funding from the community. Yes, Darien is a well-heeled community, but even so, there are a lot of excellent organizations out there that its citizens could support. Yet the library clearly held such a place in their heart that the library did not even need to partake of state construction grants -- it received that much financial support from its own patrons. This also seems to have given the library some freedom in designing the project. No state funding = no state constraints = fewer bureaucratic hurdles along the way? Just a guess. I actually don't know much about that process, so I may be incorrect, but it seems to be a fair assumption. (And yes, the good people who work the state grants process do so with great efficiency & expertise. I just mean that state processes are necessarily fraught with policies and constraints.)
It's easy to be envious sometimes, but what works better than devoting energy to envy is to see what worked for Darien conceptually and port it to our own environments. We always need an "outlier" library to serve as an example to those of us who work in more conservative surroundings. It's more like an inspiration for all of us. Look at what Darien has done and think of what you can emulate or improve on in your own community. It's not all going to fit in your community the way it does in theirs, anyway. Be creative, up the ante, come up with your own innovations (and yes, it may take a bit more creativity if you have to find ways to innovate with fewer resources behind you, but that will make your achievement even more exciting!)
So what are some of the things I noticed?
Chief among the points of interest for me is something that was not a specifically architectural feature, though it informed all of the architectural features we saw - it was the philosophical underpinnings of the library. Collaboration, transparency, permanence (or should I say sustainability?) were key factors. Even more excitingly from my perspective, Darien has an organizational structure that centers on the user. It has a "user experience design" team, that informs all aspects of the users' experience with the library - on the ground or online. This means that everything - from the self-check-out & self-check-in experiences to the web-based resources, roving reference, organization of the collection into "glades" wherein books on the same subject/topic are shelved together in ways that most people think of (much like the organization of a bookstore), rather than solely being organized via Dewey (or god forbid, LC or Cutter!) Dewey is still on the spines. But below the spine stickers with the broad topical area (e.g., "Home" or "Places"). The User Experience design team keeps the library streamlined - no signage is developed willy nilly. The UX group comes up with the proper means of guiding people through the physical spaces - sometimes, for example, it might be through the use of the many flat screens on the "main street" level's brick pillars that are the equivalent of (dynamic, like today's electronic billboards) the printed signs that libraries have traditionally used, but unlike the printed ones, these are changing all the time, automagically.
The concept of not having a separate "IT" department, as such, but integrating technology into the user experience design team's role (if I understood Jon Blyberg, Louise Berry, and Alan Gray correctly) is really revolutionary. This concept seems almost the opposite of having a "digital branch". Instead, it assumes that all things in the library these days have a digital aspect and thinks about the library at a higher conceptual level, always harkening from the perspective of the user's experience. Because the users' experience of Darien Library is really centered on the physical presence of the library building, particularly now, with the new building, a lot of the efforts made by the UX team at Darien relate to the physical collections and signage. I spend so much time immersed in web usability these days, I hadn't really thought about UX on the physical level (well, also because I have no ability to affect anything re: the physical UX). This way of organizing staff may not be appropriate for all environments, but it should give library administrators pause - give them some space to think more openly about organizational structures. (More on this when I discuss this AM's "where we live" from WNPR on "reorganizing government"...)
Think about the concept of not hiring "catalogers", as such. From the user perspective, as long as the books are findable, the "quality" of the MARC record is of no interest to them. You can't get so enmired in details and traditions that you miss the ultimate outcome. The overt focus on "cataloging" in many libraries may mean losing sight of the forest for the trees. The point of cataloging and classification was always management of the collection and findability. You have a collection of materials. What are they and where are they are the questions you need to be able to answer. Some level of consistency & quality in describing those materials is important, but is a perfect MARC record (is there such a thing) needed?
Reference at point of need is also a key concept here. Armed with a cell phone and a Netbook (ultralight, ultraportable computer that hooks to the internet via wifi) with an "Ask Me" label on it, the reference librarian can bring themselves to the patron. There is also an (impermanent) reference desk available to the librarian in the main reading room. Again, the wifi, the cell phone, the Netbook are all bits of technology, but they are solely in service of the user experience - so this project didn't need to be an "IT" project. It's just the way Darien thinks they can serve their reference users best.
Certainly, the multimedia focus and small business support via the community and conference rooms' setup, the IT labs & videoconferenceing rooms, etc., are all worthy of consideration. There is a teen lounge area with Macs & books, a children's area with everything from program rooms using warmed cork flooring to a Microsoft Surface table for the kids (and their adults) to play with. The "green" aspect of their building is also worth noting. They reclaimed the land that their building is on plus they use geothermal heating and cooling, water-saving measures, and so on.
In summary - yes, it's cool. Go forth, be cool. Innovate. (see the pics from iPhone, such as they are:)
2.0@CSL Camp redux
The good news - our leader checked in with the Dept. of Information Technology re: their acceptable use of systems policy vs. the use of Web2.0 tools. As I suspected all along, once a good business case is made, it's not like DOIT is going to stand in our way. They aren't in the business of stopping all innovation. The whole point of the policy is to keep people from misusing resources provided at work for their personal ends, not to keep people from doing their work & extending the organization's mission. All too often, it becomes easy to lay the blame for not moving forward on organizational policies rather than to say ok, what's the real issue here & how can we work around it?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Twine & organizational forking
A few notes I put together a couple of weeks back, but never published (btw, today I published up a bunch of old blog postings that I'd never made live - from as far back as 2006! why? well, when I reread the drafts, I noticed that they were interesting to me & often a bit prescient... hopefully they are useful to others, too.)
- trying to listen to / watch tutorials on Twine - this "semantic web" tool for interest networking holds some promise. The reason I like the Twine concept so much is that it relies on "RDF" (Resource Description Framework), the basis of the semantic web.
The best thing about Twine so far, in my experience, is how it's been automatically bringing in tags / metadata about pages that I "bookmark" to put into one of my interest twines. As I've been trying to tell our content creators, tools like this are why its so important, key even, that they make sure that their web pages have good titles and metadata.
Still, I've already felt frustrated by Twine. As with all things still in their early developmental stages, one often hits dead ends. And before I become reliant on a tool, I need some reassurance that my data is exportable - something I've had trouble finding in Twine thusfar (not that it's not there, just I didn't quickly find it). Even Google Notebook, backed by the web giant, is going offline. So that's key for me.
I created a couple of "twines", but you have to know that I had planned to use Twine as an extra-full featured social bookmarking-type tool. And I bookmark a lot of things in an array of subject areas. (I refuse to be nailed down, am too ADD for that!) But Twine wants me to start by creating a "twine" on a specific topic. I get why - they see this as a way of people organizing their interests, but I have to say my interests evolve. I might start with just one or two bookmarks & documents on a topic, then no more, so it's part of a broader field of interest, or I might go deeply into it - thus qualifying for a new twine. Anyhow, couldn't decide on what to call the twine that I planned to import all of my del.icio.us bookmarks into (I have Archaeology, web development, organizational behavior, etc. in there) so I just called it "web resources test". I noticed that if I left it public, it appears that anyone could add to it. Again, what the developers had in mind for this tool, so it makes good sense. But, no, I don't want to play your way, developers - please forgive me. For now, I want to experiment with a twine by controlling what's in it on my own, but still making it publicly visible. Again, that's partly because I'm at a testing stage.
Twine didn't seem super-intuitive to me, but I really wanted to make the tool do backflips, but that's another story. And it couldn't also import my Furl bookmarks.
Another thing that I found compelling about Twine, however, was its support of graphical elements and digital objects of many types (including multimedia). In your twine, you can include items that range from bookmarks (URLs), comments, documents, to images and videos. You can add a graphic / icon to your "twine" to sort of serve as a representation of the Twine's subject area.
Most importantly, of course, Twine pulls data automatically from the sites/pages you're adding for the title and description, plus automatically adds in tags (granted, that's another area of concern for me - I like my homemade tags, such as webdev2, that mean something to me - the schema's in my mind, but it makes my use of tagging easier - you can add in tags to Twine items for yourself, but it looks like you can never remove a tag that's been automatically added - if I read correctly). You can make your twine private and invite people to it. You can also forward emails directly to your twine, so you can pull together a project using this tool. And I may be incorrect - maybe I just didn't figure out how to do the things I wanted to do yet - I've only been playing with it for an hour and a half or so - and that with lots of interruptions. But really - how long should it take?
- the business of "forks" - I was listening to the video of ALA's Top Tech Trends panel from this week's Midwinter (Top Tech Trends 2009 - ALA Midwinter")- thank you, Griffey! and I kept hearing all about the dangers of "forking" - so let me quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forked with its explanation: "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software" One of my great twitterati, whose words I always hang on mentioned the dangers of forking in an organization and though it was meant humorously, I started to think about it in the context of MPOW. One of the absolutely wonderful things about my colleagues learning about Web2.0 is that they're starting to see what's possible. One of the terrible things is that there's still such a communications gap (by which, I mean a gap which I play a role in, too, so I'm not trying to put it out there that it's someone else's problem) that people decide to just do things without working with others. A random set of pages (even of websites - blogs, wikis, etc.), no cohesion about the problems we're trying to solve online and worse still, no coherence in solutions is the result. This creates a really confusing situation for the end-user. They don't know where you go for what information (why are there so many pages about x, what's the difference between those pages), what's authoritative from the organization, how credible is the organization if it can't even pull information (our specialty!) together in a meaningful way. Additionally, when colleagues decide that the solution to an online presence issue they have is to throw up a blog, wiki, or social networking account, we have to think about the realities of such sites'/pages' maintenance and migration. The lifecycle of our online information is not something that people give much thought to, but if - in the economic collapse, many of our beloved Web2.0 tools disappear and we have no plan for how to handle that - heck, knowledge that we even are using such tools, how do we migrate those things off onto our regular site? How do we migrate to a CMS if things are hither and yon (and worse still, the person doing the CMS migration isn't aware of where things are or that they exist)? These are serious issues. I'm the world's biggest fan of empowering staff and providing some means of aiding them in rapid web development. I'm a HUGE Web2.0/Library2.0 evangelist. I definitely DON'T want to to shut anyone down, take away their sense of innovation & freedom, not by any means. I just want them to talk with me, to work with me, so we can move forward in the best possible way. Talking through what their true goal or problem is and the many avenues we can take to get there at the outset always yields a better result.![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2c6b21e6-4b95-4aaf-ba5c-1e8ebd9a1d42)
- trying to listen to / watch tutorials on Twine - this "semantic web" tool for interest networking holds some promise. The reason I like the Twine concept so much is that it relies on "RDF" (Resource Description Framework), the basis of the semantic web.
"The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for representing information about resources in the World Wide Web." - http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/RDF is one of those concepts that's key for our creation and organization of digital resources, as libraries. I want to explore, for example, reengineering how we direct people to our subscription databases, possibly using RDF. A test twine I created for subscription databases =http://www.twine.com/twine/11zy7f5f9-6d/csl-databases
The best thing about Twine so far, in my experience, is how it's been automatically bringing in tags / metadata about pages that I "bookmark" to put into one of my interest twines. As I've been trying to tell our content creators, tools like this are why its so important, key even, that they make sure that their web pages have good titles and metadata.
Still, I've already felt frustrated by Twine. As with all things still in their early developmental stages, one often hits dead ends. And before I become reliant on a tool, I need some reassurance that my data is exportable - something I've had trouble finding in Twine thusfar (not that it's not there, just I didn't quickly find it). Even Google Notebook, backed by the web giant, is going offline. So that's key for me.
I created a couple of "twines", but you have to know that I had planned to use Twine as an extra-full featured social bookmarking-type tool. And I bookmark a lot of things in an array of subject areas. (I refuse to be nailed down, am too ADD for that!) But Twine wants me to start by creating a "twine" on a specific topic. I get why - they see this as a way of people organizing their interests, but I have to say my interests evolve. I might start with just one or two bookmarks & documents on a topic, then no more, so it's part of a broader field of interest, or I might go deeply into it - thus qualifying for a new twine. Anyhow, couldn't decide on what to call the twine that I planned to import all of my del.icio.us bookmarks into (I have Archaeology, web development, organizational behavior, etc. in there) so I just called it "web resources test". I noticed that if I left it public, it appears that anyone could add to it. Again, what the developers had in mind for this tool, so it makes good sense. But, no, I don't want to play your way, developers - please forgive me. For now, I want to experiment with a twine by controlling what's in it on my own, but still making it publicly visible. Again, that's partly because I'm at a testing stage.
Twine didn't seem super-intuitive to me, but I really wanted to make the tool do backflips, but that's another story. And it couldn't also import my Furl bookmarks.
Another thing that I found compelling about Twine, however, was its support of graphical elements and digital objects of many types (including multimedia). In your twine, you can include items that range from bookmarks (URLs), comments, documents, to images and videos. You can add a graphic / icon to your "twine" to sort of serve as a representation of the Twine's subject area.
Most importantly, of course, Twine pulls data automatically from the sites/pages you're adding for the title and description, plus automatically adds in tags (granted, that's another area of concern for me - I like my homemade tags, such as webdev2, that mean something to me - the schema's in my mind, but it makes my use of tagging easier - you can add in tags to Twine items for yourself, but it looks like you can never remove a tag that's been automatically added - if I read correctly). You can make your twine private and invite people to it. You can also forward emails directly to your twine, so you can pull together a project using this tool. And I may be incorrect - maybe I just didn't figure out how to do the things I wanted to do yet - I've only been playing with it for an hour and a half or so - and that with lots of interruptions. But really - how long should it take?
- the business of "forks" - I was listening to the video of ALA's Top Tech Trends panel from this week's Midwinter (Top Tech Trends 2009 - ALA Midwinter")- thank you, Griffey! and I kept hearing all about the dangers of "forking" - so let me quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forked with its explanation: "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software" One of my great twitterati, whose words I always hang on mentioned the dangers of forking in an organization and though it was meant humorously, I started to think about it in the context of MPOW. One of the absolutely wonderful things about my colleagues learning about Web2.0 is that they're starting to see what's possible. One of the terrible things is that there's still such a communications gap (by which, I mean a gap which I play a role in, too, so I'm not trying to put it out there that it's someone else's problem) that people decide to just do things without working with others. A random set of pages (even of websites - blogs, wikis, etc.), no cohesion about the problems we're trying to solve online and worse still, no coherence in solutions is the result. This creates a really confusing situation for the end-user. They don't know where you go for what information (why are there so many pages about x, what's the difference between those pages), what's authoritative from the organization, how credible is the organization if it can't even pull information (our specialty!) together in a meaningful way. Additionally, when colleagues decide that the solution to an online presence issue they have is to throw up a blog, wiki, or social networking account, we have to think about the realities of such sites'/pages' maintenance and migration. The lifecycle of our online information is not something that people give much thought to, but if - in the economic collapse, many of our beloved Web2.0 tools disappear and we have no plan for how to handle that - heck, knowledge that we even are using such tools, how do we migrate those things off onto our regular site? How do we migrate to a CMS if things are hither and yon (and worse still, the person doing the CMS migration isn't aware of where things are or that they exist)? These are serious issues. I'm the world's biggest fan of empowering staff and providing some means of aiding them in rapid web development. I'm a HUGE Web2.0/Library2.0 evangelist. I definitely DON'T want to to shut anyone down, take away their sense of innovation & freedom, not by any means. I just want them to talk with me, to work with me, so we can move forward in the best possible way. Talking through what their true goal or problem is and the many avenues we can take to get there at the outset always yields a better result.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
2.0@CSL Camp wrapup
We ran a "23 Things" project with our colleagues this fall through January. Not everyone got as involved with it as we'd hoped - and those that did often dropped off in participation. By the end, I think maybe a half dozen folks completed the work. We decided to wrap things up with an "unconference". We'd called our project 2.0@CSL, so we called this 2.0@CSL camp. 8 people RSVP'ed. Another 6 or so showed up w/o RSVPs.
We set the agenda this morning & here's what we came up with:
Then we talked about the obstacles to 2.0@CSL. The point was to find solutions. Unfortunately, it was pronounced that there would be no solution to the ultimate issue - one of policy - are we allowed to use web2.0 tools? It was one unconference attendee's interpretation of State policies that we could not use these tools. This person has history, stature, clout, position, so doubtless they were correct.
The way it was talked about implied that the Dept. of Information Technology would shut down our agency's access to the internet if they found out we even used these tools in our demos during the unconference. There was also a veiled suggestion that our employment might be in jeopardy for "violating" these policies - something that hits at the heart of most people's fear center these days. Now how our state-run institutions of higher education can offer web-based services that use Web2.0 tools can get away with it when we cannot, I couldn't quite make out.
Some of the people involved in the 2.0@CSL project said that they weren't interested in re-running it this summer, even with the suggested modifications because - if we aren't actually going to do anything with this technology - why bother?
So that's the effect that one person who is offering problem(s) with no solution(s) can have on a group. Whether it's unintentional or not, this type of negativity can derail organizational initiatives. Instead of discussing the ways around things, we are told that things are as they are - that we will not be allowed to move forward.
I think all unconferences should have in their rule book - you cannot talk about an obstacle without putting forth an idea of how to get around / deal with that obstacle.
The reality is that we will never make good decisions if we allow our organizational development to be dictated by fear, not hope. In order to prevail, we have to keep fighting the good fight. We can't flag, lose courage, or go negative. But we MUST persist. We must speak the truth, though we have to try and speak it in a way that is merciful. We must seek out and nurture only that which is constructive and route out that which is destructive to our organizations and the people they serve.
To that end, we will make clear our business case as to why the use of these tools will extend our services to the citizenry we serve. We will convince DOIT that because we are using these tools in the service of our mission, we are clearly not misusing state systems. I refuse to give up on this. I move toward hope, ever towards hope.
BTW, here are some links you might find useful as a kind of "guidebook" on how to prevent innovation, just in case you were looking for one... I see these as a kind of anti-guidebook, but who knows, maybe people actually use these on purpose?
;)
We set the agenda this morning & here's what we came up with:
- 2.0@CSL - how it went, what could've been done better, should we do it again & if so, how
- using 2.0 technologies at CSL - now that we know about the tech, what can we incorporate and how
- obstacles to 2.0 tech at CSL
- usability of the website
- IM (for reference and/or amongst colleagues)
- Twitter (a la Alaska State Library & Topeka, etc.)
- screencasting (e.g., for tutorials)
- videos, multimedia
- del.icio.us (or similar online bookmarking/tagging tools, I'm partial to trying out Twine, myself, as it uses RDF)
- blogs, wikis (well, we already use these technologies in some projects/aspects of our site, but there's a lot morewe could do with them if we were so inclined)
Then we talked about the obstacles to 2.0@CSL. The point was to find solutions. Unfortunately, it was pronounced that there would be no solution to the ultimate issue - one of policy - are we allowed to use web2.0 tools? It was one unconference attendee's interpretation of State policies that we could not use these tools. This person has history, stature, clout, position, so doubtless they were correct.
The way it was talked about implied that the Dept. of Information Technology would shut down our agency's access to the internet if they found out we even used these tools in our demos during the unconference. There was also a veiled suggestion that our employment might be in jeopardy for "violating" these policies - something that hits at the heart of most people's fear center these days. Now how our state-run institutions of higher education can offer web-based services that use Web2.0 tools can get away with it when we cannot, I couldn't quite make out.
Some of the people involved in the 2.0@CSL project said that they weren't interested in re-running it this summer, even with the suggested modifications because - if we aren't actually going to do anything with this technology - why bother?
So that's the effect that one person who is offering problem(s) with no solution(s) can have on a group. Whether it's unintentional or not, this type of negativity can derail organizational initiatives. Instead of discussing the ways around things, we are told that things are as they are - that we will not be allowed to move forward.
I think all unconferences should have in their rule book - you cannot talk about an obstacle without putting forth an idea of how to get around / deal with that obstacle.
The reality is that we will never make good decisions if we allow our organizational development to be dictated by fear, not hope. In order to prevail, we have to keep fighting the good fight. We can't flag, lose courage, or go negative. But we MUST persist. We must speak the truth, though we have to try and speak it in a way that is merciful. We must seek out and nurture only that which is constructive and route out that which is destructive to our organizations and the people they serve.
To that end, we will make clear our business case as to why the use of these tools will extend our services to the citizenry we serve. We will convince DOIT that because we are using these tools in the service of our mission, we are clearly not misusing state systems. I refuse to give up on this. I move toward hope, ever towards hope.
BTW, here are some links you might find useful as a kind of "guidebook" on how to prevent innovation, just in case you were looking for one... I see these as a kind of anti-guidebook, but who knows, maybe people actually use these on purpose?
;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)