A library 'solution' without the staff!

Last night, Mick Fortune, an expert on library technologies especially RFID, reviewed a new product from Bibliotecha, a fully serviced staff-less library. It's called Open + and is described by the company itself as;

“a complete solution which extends library opening hours and improves service to the community” which “can automatically control and monitor building access, self-service kiosks, public access computers, lighting, alarms, public announcements and patron safety.”

Apparently the model has been piloted in Leeds and 60 users signed up for the service in the first 3 weeks of operation, which to me seems an incredibly low figure.

Now there are many who would argue that volunteer-led libraries are basically staff-less and that the whole concept is not a new one with Denmark, Taipei, US and Ireland leading the way but one thing that worries me is that this 'new' model will be used by councils purely as a cost cutting exercise.
You've got to remember that the public library sector especially in England is incredibly fragmented with no real leadership, standards or strategy, with each local authority cutting, closing and divesting until a legal challenge lands on the desk of the borough solicitor.

Mick has pointed out to me that the Danish model didn't result in job losses and says in his review that;

"Bibliotheca make it very clear in all the marketing literature that their intention is NOT to accelerate the demise of the public librarian"

But, and its a big but, this is not how most local authorities will see it.

Mick also goes on to mention 'My Community', another Bibliotecha product, which although is not RFID or library related is being marketed by the company as an add-on for self-serve, it basically allows library users to access other council services, which could be seen as library budgets being used to hasten the downfall of other public services. Basically if you can pay for your council tax through a library kiosk then councils could use this to cut dedicated & trained council tax staff. Lambeth Libraries have recently invested in this product.


Bibliotecha also claim that Open+ will;


"increase community value

Increasing library access and new service delivery to meet the needs
of the whole community. Increase membership, footfall, value and secure
a resilient and relevant service for present and future generations."

 

 

 

now some might say that this is a highly contentious and inflammatory statement, especially in the current climate. Do communities want staff-less libraries? Have they got a choice? Is there a mandate for this? Is a library a library without library staff?

In Ireland recently a union representing library staff, Impact, called on it's members not to cooperate in plans to pilot staffless libraries there so it will be interesting to see what response, if any, there is here to all this.

"So, for the cost of some computer cameras and a card-based door entry system, your library can also get rid of all of its staff apparently. While I am not opposed to a holds-pickup station somewhere in your community, I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to call it a “library.”
http://librarianinblack.net/librarianinblack/2009/12/stafflesslibrary.html


for more on unstaffed or staff-less libraries see:

http://dontprivatiselibraries.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/unstaffed-libraries-contradiction-in.html
http://slq.nu/?article=volume-46-no-3-2013-5



 

Lambeth Libraries and RFID (or is it?)

Recently I tweeted Mick Fortune about what initially appeared to be an official notification of a 'Framework Agreement' relating to Lambeth Libraries, Bibliotheca and the installation of RFID. What had really caught my attention was the mention of 'My Community', a software product developed by Bibliotheca to allow access to other council services through libraries, basically a way of electronically sharing and co-locating services.

Mick very quickly blogged about this and raised three main concerns;

1. Are Councils such as Lambeth using 'Framework Agreements' properly and are the agreements themselves fit for purpose?
2. Are Lambeth, and any other Councils involved in procuring similar services, correctly adhering to the relevant guidelines and is using a 'waiver' anti-competitive?
3. 'My Community' is a propriety software developed to deliver access to other services and not an advanced version of library RFID. So, should councils be using library budgets to install it?

"but the way in which RFID is used to deliver library services has absolutely nothing to do with how “My Community” delivers other services."

Mick has made it very clear that he is not calling into question the legality of this agreement but is only suggesting that it may be stretching the guidelines, he also questions the use of library budgets to fund this type of application and why the 'profession' seems so intent on its own destruction?

"A more cynical person might suggest that using the library budget and an inappropriate library framework agreement to buy services that many believe will eventually bring about the destruction of the library service is the ultimate irony."

My take on all this is briefly summed up in the comment I left on Mick's site;

Alan Wylie

December 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm

My knowledge of the technology mentioned is very limited but i do know from talking to library staff/union members up and down the country that the vast majority of them primarily see self-serve as a way of cutting jobs. Obviously the other way to cut jobs is to create ‘hubs’ which co-locate depts/services with libraries and to either re-train library staff to take on other functions or to buy in software like ‘My Community’, or both. From the hundreds of public library consultations I’ve looked at the majority of users didn’t ask for these ‘innovations’ either, which raises some very serious professional and ethical issues.
Bibliotecha are even suggesting that councils, such as Lincolnshire CC, adopt staff-less libraries with swipe card lobbies containing only self-serve kiosks!!!
As you yourself allude to Mick the ‘profession’ seems to have a death wish.

It's also worth reading the other comments posted on his site, some of which raise similar concerns to those initially flagged up by Mick himself.

 

 

'RFID, Self Service and the future of library services' - a guest post by Mick Fortune

The following guest post 'RFID, Self Service and the future of library services' was kindly sent to me by Mick Fortune, founder member of Voices for the Library and leading RFID consultant -

Much has been said lately about the threat of RFID to the future of the UK library service.

I recently wrote a short piece for RFID Arena about the use of the technology in libraries which neglected to point out the negative impact on staffing levels that so often accompanies its introduction. My defence for not having done so was that this was a piece written for a global organisation to introduce those interested primarily in the technology to its potential uses in the library.

I called the piece “Can RFID save libraries?” because I am a passionate advocate for library services, particularly public library services, and hoped that the article might provoke some non-library, non-technical individuals into thinking about the wider uses to which the technology might be put in a library context.

There is no doubt in my mind however that the most popular use of RFID remains the introduction of self-service facilities (lending and returning stock) and that this is often done in order to reduce staff numbers.

Which is a pity. On several counts.

For the staff in those services where the technology is used to replace them it is obviously a personal tragedy for them. Interestingly the use of self-service to replace staff appears to be far more common in the public library service. Ironically academic institutions are far more likely to introduce the technology to extend opening hours or increase interaction between staff and readers to the mutual benefit of both – something that the more enlightened (and successful) public library services are doing.

But it’s not just a tragedy for staff, it may also be a tragedy for the service.

Why do I say this?

Self-service became hugely popular in the UK at a time when most other markets in the world were having reservations about using the technology at all. In the USA concern over the privacy of the individual led to legal challenges, and a virtual shutdown of the introduction of the technology. Many US libraries still don’t use it for the wide range of activities that their UK counterparts do – so why were UK libraries so eager to invest?

It seems to have been a combination of economic and peer pressures. UK librarians faced a perfect storm of reduced budgets and the sudden appearance of self-service machines across the country. Councillors wanted to know why their library didn’t have the new machines, council officers pressured library staff to reduce costs by investing in self-service.

The problem was that no-one was taking the time to understand what they were buying.

The very earliest adopters of RFID in libraries were in what we Brits still call ‘mainland’ Europe. In Denmark and Holland in particular the technology took off (and has been used to very good effect to improve library services as a whole). This was largely made possible by the early realisation by librarians in these two countries that there would be considerable long term and competitive benefits in developing something called a common ‘data model’. It’s a very simple idea – all libraries agree to use the same format and the same data on their RFID tags. That makes it possible to buy the equipment, tags and software on the open market. It also enables libraries to share resources, create a national lending service and protect their investment in the future.

None of this happened in the UK – although many librarians now claim that they thought that it had.

Consequently the majority of UK libraries that have invested heavily in RFID solutions have obtained none of the advantages enjoyed by their European neighbours – but inadvertently accepted all of the risks of early adoption. Ironically it was the market, rather than the librarians, that eventually delivered a global data standard that is now – too late for many – being deployed in most US, European and ANZ libraries.

A tragedy for the service?

Well at best an opportunity missed. To recover from these errors and be able to take advantage of the new services that will now be developed for a global market  most pre-2011 installations (the ISO data standard was adopted in the UK in 2011) – and even many more recent ones – face the cost of additional investment to reprogram stock. It’s a stark choice – accept the limitations of having bought proprietary and often unique solutions – or spend the money to join the emerging mainstream.

There are other problems here too – for which advice has been freely available but widely ignored since 2003.

Smartphones can now read (and write) library tags. That is of course an opportunity – but also a threat.

Self-service machines purchased from library budgets are now being used to pay council tax, parking fines and generally interact with a wide range of local authority services. This may be great innovation (and it is) but one wonders whether such plans formed part of public consultations (as apparently happened in the Isle of Wight) before the money was spent? Did the public really vote for the book fund to be spent on devices to make council tax payments faster?

Privacy is now becoming a concern in the UK too. Ironically, as the US emerges from its concerns over ‘hot listing’ and random scanning the UK may be plunged into the same morass.

So that’s my take on the threat of RFID. But it’s important to remember that it could also deliver a vastly improved and more useful service if used thoughtfully.