Tag Archives: Model

21st Century Library and Open Government

With a degree in English Literature and advanced education my parents have so generously funded…along with decades as a librarian and an Administrator…I like to think of myself as “well-spoken”.  I occasionally even relish the notion that I might sometimes rise to the level of “eloquent”:  However, I read an article today on the “IMLS Blog” that purported a notion that was so obvious- but presented as NEW- that it left me with none of these attributes.  My only response was… “Duh?!”

Be that as it may, I still felt it was worth sharing.  The ideas presented (clearly new to the researchers and participants of the work) are, in my opinion, simply reaffirmations of what many of us in Public Libraries already know and work toward every day.  Their findings also reaffirm my belief in the necessity of a common mission of Public Libraries:

“To provide the open and equal access to information that is necessary for the existence of an informed citizenry able to participate in their government.”

“A Demand-side Open Government Planning Model for Public Libraries”


The question of the project detailed in the article:

What role can public libraries play in the highly visible and expanding domain of Open Government?
The project answer:
Public libraries are the best-positioned community anchors to address the demand-side of open government. In addition, with a bit more strategic vision and planning, they can play a key role in helping ensure that open government activities align with community aspirations and that citizens have the capabilities to contribute to the opening of government in useful and meaningful ways.
The author goes on to write:
One of the most revealing things I learned was that public libraries have a long history of supporting the opening of government through many of the services and resources they provide. However, this role was hidden in plain sight due to the lack of common language and understanding both within the public library community and between public libraries and open government experts.
Adopting a focus on the demand side of open government will provide public libraries with a much needed common language and a strategic planning platform to help match their programs and activities to their communities’ needs and capabilities. Focusing on the demand side of open government will assist public libraries in developing key partnerships with government and other entities, helping government officials, government agencies, nonprofits, and private organizations have a direct resource to the community and its needs. It will also allow them to play a significant role in and benefit from the open government trend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

21st Century Libraries Look Like: Something Unexpected – Part 3

Little Free Library / NYC

The 21st Century Library is – SOMETHING UNEXPECTED!

The Story Behind Ten Tiny Libraries That Popped Up in NYC This Summer

What unexpected library feature have you created in your community?

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Perception 3 – Millennial Thinking

The other day my good friend urban library director asked me what came after Library 2.0. I had to think for a minute to realize that “Nothing” came after Library 2.0. There was “23 Things” that went around the world as the right information for the right time. Then as Web 2.0 was sweeping the nation, somebody dreamed up Library 2.0 which was simply new technology that might be used by a library. Since then there has been nothing new – of substance that the majority of the library world embraced – to come along to explain or elaborate on how we go about developing a 21st Century Library. Library 2.0 implied there were more iterations to come. There weren’t, and there aren’t.

Of course, that got me thinking on the subject and reflecting on many of my posts over the past couple of years. Many ideas and perceptions flooded into my mind and what surfaced was “Perception 3” – not 3.0 because there is no subsequent iteration to a new perception and millennial thinking. Even before I had a clear concept of what it was, Perception 3 stuck in my mind as maybe what comes next for the 21st Century Library. Let me elaborate.

Most of my life I’ve believed that when approaching any task, there is a right way, a wrong way and then there is another way – the Army way – or the government way – or the Dallas Cowboys way – or the Smallville Chamber of Commerce way – or Douglas County (CO) Library way – or whoever’s way. This essentially makes three ways of approaching any task or challenge or problem. Let me further elaborate.

The right way is the conventional wisdom way of approaching something. This is usually based in experience – we’ve always done it this way – and takes a safe conventional approach based on a generalized conventional perception that all conditions are equal to all previous conditions where this approach was successful. Only in the most simplistic sense can this be true. No two conditions or set of circumstances can ever be identical. The world is coming to understand this more as more and more actual situations prove that to be the case. Every situation is unique in some way, usually unique in many ways.

The wrong way is simply that. The solution flies in the face of reason and common sense – one does not use a sledge hammer to drive a picture hanger nail into wall board. One does not ask a prospective hire if they are married or have children. The wrong way is often the easy way, short-term solution with no regard for the long-term effects. The wrong way may also be the popular way, or fad way, or any other simplistic perspective on any task. The vast majority of the time it won’t work.

“Perception 3” is about approaching a solution to a challenge in a situational way. What are the circumstances, conditions, factors that influence the outcome and the root issue/cause of the situation that needs fixing? More importantly, what are your capabilities or resources to address the issue?

I recently read a review by Brian Kenney of Douglas County (CO) Library Director Jamie LaRue’s model for an e-book platform – Giving Them What They Should Want – at Publishers Weekly website. The thrust of the article was regarding the title, providing collection materials that librarians determine are what library customers should read, as opposed to what they want to read. Kenny raised the question: “That strategy seems to represent a new chapter in a debate public librarians in America have had for 150 years: should we be providing our readers with the material they want, or should we be providing books we think they should read?”

That’s actually not what this post is about, because what I got from the article was a clear sense that Douglas County Library is doing what’s right for it and its community. LaRue had the capability to create his own e-book platform and buy materials from non-traditional publishing/distribution sources to provide his customers with more choice than he could have provided through traditional sources. It works for them!

Serving an affluent, totally wired population of 300,000, the seven-branch DCL system was ripe for e-book experimentation. Well funded – with a materials budget of $3.3 million – the library was an early adopter of e-books, and remains both an Overdrive and 3M customer. Furthermore, DCL has LaRue, an entrepreneurial director, who has assembled a like-minded team.

So when the e-book drama with libraries began, LaRue went to his board and got its blessing to invest in the technology and software for DCL to host its own e-book platform. The library system acquired an Adobe Content Server, a MySQL server, and VuFind, a discovery layer that provides a unified, simplified front end, serving up results from the catalogue and the e-book collections in one user-friendly set.


LaRue didn’t wait for conventional thinking to tell him it was a good idea. He assessed his situation, he considered the circumstances, conditions, and factors that influenced the issue, as well as determined the WHY of the issue and established a goal. He determined the outcome he wanted for the situation that needed fixing, as well as the constraints on his library’s capabilities. There should be no criticism of what works for somebody else.

My point is: It was the right thing for DCL – LaRue knew it and used Millennial Thinking to make it work.

My other point is: It isn’t right for other libraries unless they have highly similar resources and communities. So, it would be wrong for them to try to adopt the DCL Model that LaRue developed. It’s actually even misleading to refer to it as a “model,” because it has very limited general application as it exists in DCL. Although someone else might be able to adopt some of what LaRue accomplished to fit their library’s circumstances, capabilities and community.

“Perception 3” is a new way of looking at YOUR specific situation, and finding the solutions that work for you. Perception 3 is rooted in organizational perception and framed in organizational capabilities. Perception 3 is Millennial Thinking!

Obviously, this flies in the face of traditional thinking and problem solving, but honestly, what has that accomplished since the beginning of the 21st Century? What have our professional organizations and schools of library and information science provided in new ideas and approaches to make 20th Century libraries relevant for the next 100 years? or even for next year for that matter? The drastically rapid technology, education and social advancements have impacted the way libraries are perceived and what services customers demand to the extent that the “right way” – the safe and traditional way – is useless. When libraries are on the threshold of irrelevance, shouldn’t somebody say “business as usual won’t save us” and strike out into new ways of librarianship? Librarians like LaRue and Kansas State Librarian Jo Budler appear to be doing just that.

Sun City Library, San Diego (CA), developed an advertising/sponsorship idea and consider it a win-win for the library and local businesses. Gwinnett County (GA) Library Board recently voted against it. Some solutions work for some libraries, but not all.

That is the Perception 3 approach – Millennial Thinking – What works for your library!


Filed under Uncategorized

Library Leadership…

… in the 21st Century.

Now seems like an excellent time to highlight and re-emphasize 21st Century Library – “Rebooted” Into Relevance that highlighted an exceptionally thought provoking article by Scott Corwin, Elisabeth Hartley & Harry Hawkes – “The Library Rebooted” published at Booz & Company website strategy+business.
Because the article contains the authors’ insightful
7 Imperatives for Library Leadership

    1. Rethink the operating model
    2. Understand and respond to user needs
    3. Embrace the concept of continuous innovation
    4. Forge a digital identity
    5. Connect with stakeholders in ways that pure internet companies cannot
    6. Expand the metrics
    7. Be courageous

Let’s seriously consider changing the status quo and make the 21st Century Library relevant again.

1. Rethink the operating model.
Many of the old assumptions about running a library — that the measure of a library’s quality is the size of its book collection, that there’s value in keeping even infrequently loaned books on the shelves, that library staffing decisions shouldn’t be questioned — are outmoded and need to be set aside. This is not to say that libraries will be able to re-create themselves as purely digital, service-oriented organizations; …. But many libraries today, operating in paper and film, haven’t changed some of their operating practices since World War II. Their role as the preservers of recorded history means they have to spend a lot of their resources just maintaining the assets they already have. … They should … explore new ways of serving users more conveniently, effectively, and efficiently. Perhaps they can create an online reservation system that patrons can use for a small fee if they want to have a book waiting for them at the front desk when they arrive. … Such analytically enabled improvements are necessary as libraries come under increasing budgetary pressure.” [Emphasis added.]

From my March 11, 2010 Post The 21st Century Library is More: Business-like: Efficient – “Even with an economic upswing on the horizon, the focus on doing more with less won’t fade away. In fact, some say the paradigm of productivity has changed. Smart companies are moving beyond the basics – empowering top talent to implement creative solutions and finding innovative ways to free up cash and lift operating performance.” Deloitte Development LLC

2. Understand and respond to user needs.
“Libraries have only the most general information about their users — how many of them there are, what they do when they are at the library, and what they borrow. … [Due to] some provisions of legislation enacted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. … the solution most libraries have settled on — namely, to avoid gathering any detailed information about users’ needs and activities — is far too timid. Libraries should develop advanced capabilities to build aggregated profiles of users, or what retailers call customer segmentation analysis. Who is visiting the library and how often are they coming? What are they doing once they get there? Which books do they borrow most often? Which books never leave the shelves? Which services get used most often; which least? Merchandisers and retailers have tools to help them answer these kinds of questions. Libraries, too, should adapt or create these and similar tools.” [Emphasis added.]

From my March 11, 2010 Post The 21st Century Library is More: Business-like: Marketing Strategy – “The more difficult the economic climate, the greater the imperative to have systems which provide the firm with market focus, the ability to differentiate itself from the competition through innovation, and the processes to manage scarce resources.” United Kingdom Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Supporting innovation services Executive Summary August, 2008.

3. Embrace the concept of continuous innovation.
“This is not the time for libraries to shy away from new strategies. Library executives need to do more than innovate, however. They need to approach the innovation challenge with an entrepreneurial mind-set: test, measure, refine. And if something does not work, they must go through the process again: Test, measure, and refine using new ideas and concepts. The innovation doesn’t have to be of any one type; it can happen across the whole library value chain. For instance, changes might be operational — like the Toronto Library’s use of radio frequency identification (RFID) readers to bring a measure of self-service to the checkout function … Changes might be atmospheric, such as the background music the Seattle Library now pipes into its domed young-adult sections. Finally, there might be changes in format, including the opening of smaller library “outlets” in what is essentially a variation on a theme already being practiced by retailers like Lowe’s, Wal-Mart, and Tesco. Libraries should appropriate the many traffic-building enhancements that retailers are making to their stores.” [Emphasis added.]

(Read my March 11, 2010 Post The 21st Century Library is More: Business-like RE: Innovation, and my August 10, 2011 Post Perpetual Beta – The Real 21st Century Library Model?.)

4. Forge a digital identity.
“Clearly, there is no way that libraries could transform themselves into leading-edge Internet organizations even if they wanted to. Nor should they aspire to that. A great many things are in flux, and a library that goes too far with a digitization initiative today runs the risk of creating data structures that will be incompatible with future standards. But some experimentation is in order. Should libraries let people reserve books remotely, from their home or office? Should they adopt a convenient delivery-to-home model, à la Netflix? Should they make their librarians available at all hours to respond to online inquiries? And to the extent that they do these things, should they (as part of rethinking their operating model) charge for some of these services, as the Toronto Library does with a fee-based custom research service? Finally, should libraries pursue these initiatives alone or in concert with one another?”

(Read my September 30, 2010 Post 21st Century Library Collaboration.)

5. Connect with stakeholders in ways pure Internet companies cannot.
“Libraries can’t provide faster online data retrieval than a search engine, and that’s not where they should try to compete. What they can do, on the community library side, is take advantage of their local strength…. Community library leaders who get out and make connections in the community will successfully transform their institution into a fulcrum for many of the issues and concerns that touch local residents. Their programs, services, and offerings will all be better off as a result of this outreach and connectedness.”

In June 2009 Librarians Matter Blogger Kathryn Greenhill of Australia posted some valuable and intriguing ideas about “Getting deeply local at our libraries”.

6. Expand the metrics.
“… Keeping track of the number of monthly and annual physical visitors … monitoring the number of books … in circulation” must give way to “online-specific metrics … especially as libraries invest more resources in digital initiatives and put bigger parts of their collections online. And it will be important … for the measurements to move beyond the strictly countable … into attitudinal areas like level of engagement and customer satisfaction. … [I]n the bigger context of changes, this resistance to [measure staff performance] should be easy to surmount. Institutions that proactively measure performance, embrace change, and look for ways to serve users will have an easier time getting financial support in an era of reduced public resources and private donations.” [Emphasis added.]

7. Be courageous.
The library “… world has changed — a lot. … the environment in which libraries operate has certainly shifted, and the challenge for those running them is to figure out the evolutionary path they should follow. There is no one answer, which may provide an advantage to those with an appetite for intelligent risk taking. After all, nothing nowadays — nothing at all — is written in stone.”
[Emphasis added.]

It’s far past time that library leaders understand it’s a new world and 21st Century Librarianship is essential to recapturing our relevance to our communities!


Filed under Uncategorized

PLA President Advocates Leadership

I contend that the greatest impediment to the future of public libraries is the growing number of library practitioners who lack community leadership skills. I fear that many key staff members in public libraries are reluctant to interact and work with local government administrators and other community leaders, at a time when it is absolutely crucial to relate how the library finds solutions to meet the needs and priorities of the communities we serve.

So wrote 2012–2013 PLA President Eva Poole in her first message as president – Leadership Skills More Crucial Than Ever – in the July/August 2012 issue of “Public Libraries”

…., we must remember that we share the same challenges and issues as those faced by our local government administrators. In a Public Management (PM) magazine article titled “Picturing It: The Year 2020,” local government administrators were asked to predict what their professional challenges would be in the year 2020. Their predictions were summarized as follows:
• Quality of life and a sense of place will be important to residents.
• IT developments will allow for greater productivity.
• Service delivery will be streamlined.
• Resident engagement will become the norm.
• Performance measurement and benchmarking will be emphasized.
• Teamwork and consensus building will be essential skills.
• Working effectively with diverse and aging populations will be a major skill.
• A commitment to sustainability will be standard.

Isn’t it ironic that what our local government administrators see for their future is the current reality for us as public library leaders? We can make a difference in the way public libraries are perceived by our local government administrators by becoming not only effective library leaders, but community leaders.

What seems ironic to me is that it has taken this long for our professional leaders to recognize what we in the field have been asserting for years. Local libraries don’t have time to wait for the slowly turning wheels of bureaucracy and committees and associations to turn around to recognizing the issues and addressing the solutions. We’ve begun to find our own solutions that those other “leaders” can look to as examples.

In 2006, PLA established a Leadership Development Task Force, chaired by past-PLA president Luis Herrera, to develop leaders for the profession and the association in response to the changing environment in which public libraries operate. We need leaders who embrace change and can implement a vision that will transform public libraries. The work of the task force, now chaired by Carolyn Anthony, continues. The task force has identified key elements of successful leadership for public libraries. A key observation is that to be an effective library leader, a person must be a community leader, engaged with the community and relating the library’s offerings to the needs and priorities of the community. Effective library leadership also involves partnerships with other agencies in the community. We continue to develop this leadership model and plan to launch it nationally.

SIX years for a “task force” to come up with a plan is not something to brag about, but I sincerely applaud President Poole for making leadership her number one priority.


Filed under Uncategorized

21st Century Library Organization

For many decades SLIS have been teaching that the library organization is a basic form-follows-function, hierarchy style organization. One director supervises an appropriate number of assistant directors, depending on the size of the organization, or function managers, who oversee the “traditional” functions of a “library”.

These traditional functions include:
• Public service – circulation, adult services, youth services, programing, etc.
• Operations – cataloging, collection development, facilities, tech support, etc.
• Administration – accounting, human resources, policy, training, etc.
Many of these functional areas have supervisors/managers, depending on the size of the organization, and an appropriate number of staff “librarians”.

Virtually all library organizations are some derivative of this diagram.

Librarians fill many functional roles within the traditional organization, but the relevant question is – “What is the role of the librarian in a 21st Century Library?” As more technologies emerge, and more types of information demands emerge, the “librarian” role is transforming. Doesn’t this transformation require a new type of library organization?

Galbraith, J.R. (1971). “Matrix Organization Designs: How to combine functional and project forms” was a standard for matrix management and organization design back in the day. The basic distinction made by Galbraith was between “functional” and “product” design for an organization, on a continuum between the two pure forms, with “matrix” being the blended design in the middle.

Galbraith’s 1971 “matrix” design diagram.

The Embedded Librarian David Shumaker proposed that “… a matrixed organization in which librarians are matrixed, or embedded, where they are needed, is an organization that really brings information and knowledge to bear on critical elements of its work.”

I suspect that his proposal for embedded librarians is a matrix design limited to just the embedded librarians, but he makes a good case for the advantages of this type of organization.

There continue to be some tasks that are better performed centrally: these may range from basic document delivery work to negotiating and managing complex and expensive enterprise-wide content licenses. Keeping the embedded librarians connected to the central library service strengthens communication and collaboration between the two: the embedded librarians can refer some tasks to the central library, and also provide their insights to help inform service and resource decisions.

Finally, the embedded librarians are likely to use many of the same tools and encounter the same problems in their work. Clearly they constitute a community of practice, and they have their own knowledge sharing needs for professional tips, tricks, techniques, and problem solving. The central library connection facilitates communication and collaboration among them.

The major distinction between Shumaker’s proposal and Galbraith’s is that the two managers involved over the embedded librarian are not part of the same organization with a single conversion of authority over both at some point up the ladder. One traditional disadvantage of a matrix organization is a conflict of loyalty between line managers and project managers over the allocation of resources. With Shumaker’s proposal technically being more of a collaborative relationship than a true matrix, that weakness may be overcome.

I think Shumaker may have hit upon a new concept for the 21st Century Library organization that blends and combines whatever structures and lines of authority will actually work. What does your non-traditional library organization look like?

PS: Perfect segue – Galbraith has a new book (2008) entitled “Designing Matrix Organizations That Actually Work” in which he asserts that “organization structures do not fail, but management fails at implementing them correctly. This is why the idea that the matrix does not work still exists today, even among people who should know better. But the matrix has become a necessary form of organization in today’s business environment.”


Filed under Uncategorized

A Library SME in Community

SME means “subject matter expert”, and SME in ‘Community’ means someone on the library staff who is a subject matter expert about your community. Borrowing primarily from the field of training, SMEs are those individuals who have expert working knowledge in a particular topic.

From our vast resources at Wikipedia;

In general, the term is used when developing materials (a book, an examination, a manual, etc.) about a topic, and expertise on the topic is needed by the personnel developing the material. For example, tests are often created by a team of psychometricians and a team of subject matter experts. The psychometricians understand how to engineer a test while the subject matter experts understand the actual content of the exam. Books, manuals, and technical documentation are developed by Technical writers and instructional designers in conjunctions with SMEs. Technical communicators interview SMEs to extract information and convert it into a form suitable for the audience. SMEs are often required to sign off on the documents or training developed, checking it for accuracy. SMEs are also necessary for the development of training materials.

OK. So what does this have to do with librarianship?
• What is more important to the survival of the 21st Century Library than an intimate knowledge of your community? NOTHING!
• What is more critical to developing a relevant 21st Century Library than a working knowledge of your community? NOTHING!
• What is more useful to developing a relevant 21st Century mission and services than understanding your community’s needs? NOTHING!

Ergo – NOTHING is more important than having a SME in Community on your library staff. It does not have to be the Director, because if you follow the model outlined in the Wikipedia explanation – there is one librarianship SME and other SMEs in other areas – like Community – who could be a marketing or PR person, depending on the size of your staff and library system.

If you think you can accomplish a traditional ‘community needs assessment’ adequately every few years when it’s time for a new Strategic Plan – you could not be more wrong. Developing the required depth of knowledge about your community is almost a full time job. It takes many hours and constant interaction with community organizations and leaders to keep track of all this information, and it has to be constantly evaluated using critical analysis, not just casual observation. Documentation regarding trends, changes, events, activities, new developments, emerging leaders and factions, and virtually everything community related must be collected and kept to substantiate whatever conclusions the SME in Community develops.

This is not your SLIS professor’s ‘Community Needs Assessment 101’ – that will not work in this 21st Century environment.

If you’re wondering how to do all that, and what the SME in Community needs to know about the Community, read on.

You’ll recall that one of the new 21st Century Librarianship skills is Customer Targeting.

For decades ‘community needs assessment’ has been a pillar of librarianship, and more recently such undertakings have led to marketing efforts for library services to help improve circulation – the last great 20th Century library metrics.

At MyStrategicPlan, “a nationwide leader in on-demand strategic planning services”, there is a comprehensive Post on “customer targeting”, in which they present the idea that…there are six customer “types” and where they fit into the customer hierarchy.

However, a broader application of understanding your customers is in understanding your community. What are the demographics of your community? Not just population and data, but really meaningful information such as; ethnicity beyond simple statistics, economics beyond household income, employment beyond just major employers and the employee pool, education beyond just the percent of high school graduates, culture beyond just local ethnic events or holidays, transportation beyond just what is available, and life styles beyond simple economic indicators. There is much more to understanding the community than data! Even surveys, which are all biased toward those willing to take the time to respond, will not provide the type of in-depth information the library needs to provide relevant services. It requires someone from the library to be out in the community – participating!

Traditional community needs assessment endeavors to periodically collect community data using survey and demographic analysis methodology. That approach is nowhere good enough for today – let alone tomorrow. The analysis must be much more comprehensive and current. It must be information collected from within the community in a context of the community. It must be meaningful to the library’s SME in Community, so that it can be translated into library services – and marketing.

Below are some suggested areas of information to analyze.

• Legal service area
• Where patrons live (Are they spread out over great distances? Describe how people and communities are distributed within the library’s jurisdiction. Where do they congregate?)
• Age brackets of patrons (Whatever brackets seem appropriate for library needs)

• Average household income (Median household income also)
• Unemployment rate
• Percentage of families below the poverty line
• Economic resources the library can draw on

• Percentage of population over 18 with 12 years of school completed, 16 years, more
• List the schools in your community (elementary, middle, high, post-secondary, public and private)
• Describe the library/media facilities in the listed schools (do they define or serve any specific library services niche)
• Higher education institutions library services (do they define or serve any specific library services niche)

• Describe the cultural and recreational activities that are popular in the community served
• List the cultural and recreational facilities available in the library’s service area.
• List the cultural and recreational organizations that are active.
• List civic groups active in the area (their goals and interests and services)
• Community public communications (newspaper, radio, newsletter, message boards, etc.)

The most comprehensive outline for community needs assessment that I have found is from the Community Analysis Research Institute (CARI) Model© which establishes four units of analysis for communities: Individuals, Groups, Agencies, and Life Styles. It requires more depth for 21st Century application, but it provides an essential starting point and organization.

One of the major failings in virtually all community needs assessment approaches is the lack of connection between what the analysis reveals, and what that means to the library in terms of application of the information toward creating, abandoning or revising services and programs. What does it mean that xx% of the community has an average household income of $xx,xxx? What does it mean that the community has no cultural center? What does it mean that the community celebrates Ground Hog Day with a parade? What does it mean that the community starts public school the first of August each year? What does it mean that the community is a “university town”? Maybe there has been a logical reason for that.

This is where ideas and approaches like the “deeply local” approach of Kathryn Greenhill’s Getting deeply local at our libraries can benefit libraries in the 21st Century. I have emphasized that the 21st Century Library Model is customized and specific to each community. There is no universal one-model-fits-all, so each library must interpret their community for themselves. In my Post The Revolutionary Library of April, 2011 I wrote the following.

Even though there will continue to be a generally agreed upon body of knowledge for the profession that is taught by SLIS, and debated by gatherings of librarians, as well as some long-held tenets professed by associations of librarians – the ways in which we think about and perceive libraries in the 21st Century MUST fit the rapid and continually changing environment and circumstances of the future.

21st Century Library Paradigm:
The 21st Century Library will be defined by those librarians running the library to meet the needs of its local community, more than by the profession, or schools of library and information science, or by any association of librarians’ principles.


Filed under Uncategorized