Politics of the library of the future
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb045013 |
| Published date | 01 June 1990 |
| Date | 01 June 1990 |
| Pages | 408-411 |
| Author | Mara Niels |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
Article
Politics of the library of
the future
Mara Niels
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory,
PO Box
5501,
Livermore,
CA
94551-0611,
USA
1.
It's not enough to do a great job!
We sometimes view politics as a dirty business that is never-
theless necessary in order to accomplish major initiatives like
implementing new technology in the library. We wish that,
without lobbying or tooting our own horn, the high quality of
our staff's work, ideas, and proposals would be recognized
and rewarded with the resources and political support they
deserve and that are needed to create the library of the future
for our users.
Certainly, the library staff's demonstrated understanding
of new technology and ability to implement it are a pre-
requisite to support for new development. But while individ-
ual efforts are often praised and the library's value
is
generally
acknowledged by the parent organization, these conditions
alone do not lead to the kind of investment in the future that is
needed to build the library of the future.
Working the political process is also essential and is often
ignored by libraries. This paper will discuss some ways to
work the political process of an organization in order to get
the resources needed for developing the library of
the
future.
2.
Building the library of the future requires funding
Usually, additional resources are needed to implement new
technologies. Many libraries are experiencing flat or declin-
ing funding. In those cases, building for the future requires
creative approaches to finding resources for investment. Non-
traditional sources of funding should be explored. For
example, academic or commercial grants for research, hiring
graduate students for certain services, and sharing resources
(such as computer resources) with other members of the or-
ganization have all been used by libraries to stretch their bud-
gets.
Of course, sometimes avenues such as these are used
simply to keep up with inflation rather than to fund new initia-
tives.
Although nontraditional resources cannot be expected to
fully fund a library's reach into the future, using such resour-
ces to the maximum possible shows that the library is making
every effort to find resources. Even failed efforts to find alter-
native funding can be useful politically: they show that the
library made the effort, and that the channel they explored is
not a useful one. When competing for funds with other parts
of the organization, a strong record of looking for such alter-
natives might predispose founders to give the library an edge
over other organizations that have not made every effort on
their own
behalf.
For some organizations, it may be essential to divert fund-
ing into new initiatives at the expense of existing services or
materials. It is very difficult to decide to discontinue lower-
priority but still valued services to fund new ventures, but it
must be done if new directions must be pursued and other
sources of funds are not forthcoming. To refuse to do so is to
be like the family that lives from hand to mouth, never able to
scrape together enough capital to invest in its future, thereby
ensuring that it will never escape the hand-to-mouth tread-
mill. The difficulties of diverting funds for investment need
not be discussed here, except to emphasize that without doing
so,
nothing
is
likely
to
change —
an
outcome that few libraries
can afford today.
Doesn't everyone hope that upon proposing library initia-
tives,
they are reviewed with enthusiasm and funded prompt-
ly? In today's difficult budget climate, eventual success
usually requires much proposing, lobbying, discussing, revis-
ing, and negotiating; the chances of a successful outcome are
multiplied if a variety of approaches is pursued rather than
just the single one of telling your manager what you need and
hoping it will materialize.
3.
Align library priorities with your organization's
priorities
Before making the library's needs known, it is important to
verify that the library's priorities are consistent with those of
the organization. It's no good to make resource requests that
would have been supported two years
ago,
but that are viewed
as out of
step
today.
Recent changes in the organization should be identified:
growth, changing focus, changing ways of operating, or
downsizing will all impact the perception of services desired
from the library. In some cases, new products or services will
be appropriate; least valued services or expenses may have to
be dropped. Even if not acted upon, library proposals that are
consistent with the organization's current issues can be politi-
cally valuable. For example in a year of decreased overall
budgets, one library identified ways to give funding back to
its parent organization; although this was counterproductive
to the library's needs in the short run, it was believed to have
the political long-run benefits of aligning the library as a team
player that contributes to the firm's bottom line, with the idea
that this would lead to good will and better funding in more
prosperous times.
4.
Ask for what you want — in writing
Libraries that do not ask for additional resources rarely get
them. So ask! But do it via formal, written plans. Verbal re-
quests are often rebuffed with the question 'do you have a
408 The Electronic Library, Vol. 8, No. 6, December 1990
To continue reading
Request your trial