Why?

I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time, and certainly not the last), but it seems to me the 23Things concept is a way to update knowledge of technology within the Library community. But why?

Not that I don't think it's laudable. But what is the goal? I know why I keep up with technology, but this set of exercises was not conceived for me. These exercises, in this setting, targeted all library employees, asking them to try out various web technologies, think about them in a library context, and report on them in a now old (by web standards) medium: blogs. Why?

Is anybody even reading the blogs (besides a few friends and coworkers)? I get a picture of someone somewhere checking 249 feeds...for what? That they were written? Why?

What possible relevance will this have in their jobs for those who have (or haven't) participated? From what I've seen and heard, it's been diverting, it's been strange, it's been stressful. It has not been useful for work.

Where is the culture of Web 2.0 in this library? Where are the leaders that will join the dialog?

Technology is only a tool. 23Things is about learning the tools. The architecture of Web 2.0 requires new and different tools. But the architecture itself is so radically different that the new tools are useless without a paradigm shift. What these exercises have done is teach the tools, show the blueprints, and withheld the permits necessary to build.

Why?

Compatibility

One of the web design statements I come across frequently is that it doesn't make sense to invite people to your site only to face annoying obstacles or be blocked entirely because they don't have the preferred browser or plugins. They will either leave without a second glance, or they will be increasingly annoyed at the frustrating experience at your site.

This concept is also applied to "brick and mortar" sites: you don't want to invite customers then make it difficult to enter the building after they get there. This seems like basic Marketing 101: make it easy to find, easy to get in, easy to use. I think it should be applied to everything an organization does, whether for profit, not for profit, or governmental. If a service or product is going to be offered, don't allow roadblocks. You never know how many people will be turned away, and in today's web 2.0 world, what the consequences will be (how far and how fast will the word be spread).

Which brings me to OverDrive, a good example of a flawed product/service that is being marketed to library patrons. How many iPods have been sold? Over 150 million? How many mp3's with DRM on them? A million? A couple million? Why on earth would a library excuse itself from that Marketing 101 rule by citing the Apple/Microsoft/DRM debate. Who cares? Not the patron. All the patron cares about is that the library is offering a service that doesn't work for them.

Is it really a good idea to promote a service or product that won't work for the majority of people it is targeted for? Yes, I am lumping iPod users in with MP3 users, because from their perspective, those devices are just the modern version of portable CD and tape players, and they aren't interested in the finer points of DRM which now plague us.

On the other side, is it really a good idea to spend public money on resources which promote a specific industry player (Microsoft)? But that's fodder for another post.

Relevance

I was talking with an IT manager recently (actually there were a few of them in the discussion), who offered this observation, which elicited much head-nodding:

The problem with collaboration is that once you get to the people high enough in the chain of command to effect a change, you find they don't even know what a computer is.

The example at hand was a case of IT support checking on a web access problem for individual users and finding the problem could be solved by installing and using Firefox instead of Internet Explorer. But the computers are set up by another department, which only installs I.E. on the computers. So the IT support folks are constantly going out to install Firefox. The problem was how to get the other department to include Firefox in the applications they install on new computers.

What does this have to do with Libraries and 23Things? The chain of command.

It's very nice to encourage employees to update their knowledge of web technology. But what good is that knowledge within an organization if the ones required to effect change don't know or understand the very technology they are encouraging the employees to learn about? What good is knowing about Zoho, or Technorati, or LibraryThing, or PBWiki, if there is no hope of doing anything with them beyond the 23Things exercise because the people high enough in the chain to effect change "don't even know what a computer is"?

Web 2.0 is disruptive technology. It requires administrators face risk and rethink what is and what will be. The status quo will not work any more. 23Things will be relevant when library administrators understand the technology of Web 2.0 and are willing to accept the risk of disruptive technology and start rethinking what is and what will be.