I just have to repeat this post by Joseph Lucia at Villanova on the ngc4lib mailing list:
If we look beyond money to personnel, the option looks even better. Let me suggest some numbers. What if, in the U.S., 50 ARL libraries, 20 large public libraries, 20 medium-sized academic libraries, and 20 Oberlin group libraries anted up one full-time technology position for collaborative open source development. That's 110 developers working on library applications with robust, quickly-implemented current Web technology -- not legacy stuff. There is not a company in the industry that I know of which has put that much technical effort into product development. With such a cohort of developers working in libraries on library technology needs -- and in light of the creativity and thoughtfulness evident on forums like this one -- I think we would quickly see radical change in the library technology arena. Instead of being technology followers, I venture to say that libraries might once again become leaders. Let's add to the pool some talent from beyond the U.S. -- say ! 20 libraries in Canada, 10 in Australia, and 10 in the U.K. put staff into the pool. We've now got 150 developers in this little start-up. Then we begin pouring our current software support funds into regional collaboratives. Within a year or two, we could be re-directing 10s of millions of dollars into regional technology development partnerships sponsored by and housed within the regional consortia, supporting and extending the work of libraries. The potential for innovation and rapid deployment of new tools boggles the mind. The resources at our disposal in this scenario dwarf what any software vendor in our small application space is ever going to support. And, as is implicit in all I've said, the NGC is just the tip of the iceberg.
While this is does not mention Special Libraries - I think it should! Special Libraries are more likely to have library-devoted IT staff than an academic library is (at least in my experience). Also - if you don't include special librarians in the mix, then special libraries are stuck continuing to use the prepackaged products developed by those who don't understand how "special" we really are.
I agree absolutely about including special libraries. We are, I think in many cases, more prepared to try new things because of our special missions.
I'm not sure I agree that special libraries are more likely to have dedicated IT staff, though. We had a chapter meeting yesterday with a technology-focused program, and I didn't get the feeling that any of the libraries had dedicated library IT staff *except* the academic libraries. In fact, one of our speakers works in the IT department at Penn State's library.
Posted by: Tara | Friday, November 09, 2007 at 05:22
Really? At Jenkins Law Library we had our own IT staff and I visited another special library recently that did too - our academic library depends on the IT staff for the entire community - I guess it just depends where you go :)
Posted by: Nicole | Friday, November 09, 2007 at 05:24
Maybe it has more to do with the size of the organization than whether the library is special or academic? At the meeting yesterday, we had representation from small special libraries and a large academic library. I imagine with an audience representing larger special libraries and smaller academic libraries, the IT situation might well have been reversed.
Posted by: Tara | Friday, November 09, 2007 at 07:36