OCLC: A Review (PDF here) is the title of an essay by Jeffrey Beall that is included in a book titled Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front.

First, let me reiterate my own attitude about OCLC: They are, for good and for bad, the 800 pound gorilla of the library world. Decisions that they make, and the approach they take towards librarianship, effect us dramatically, and there is not much that we can individually do about it.

They have done great things, from WorldCat.org to providing as complete a set of bibliographic records as exists in the world. Among the negatives are the cost barriers that can eat away much of the budget of smaller libraries, as well as the one-way trip that bibliographic information seems to make into their system.

This article, however, is a strong attack on OCLC that simply overreaches. Many of the projects run by OCLC, including WorldCat, have benefitted from their monolithic approach, and while I would much prefer to see them be more open and flexible, I still appreciate their scope and vision.

One example of the style of his argument: He opens the article with criticism for the title of Karen Schneider’s posts on ALA TechSource (“How OPACs Suck” (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)). He states that her title is “specious, of course” because “they have quietly and efficiently been linking researchers and others with desired information for about twenty years.” He does not address the main concerns of the posts, which is how library search tools have fallen behind, and that the search capabilities that people have grown to expect are lacking in many of the major ILS OPACs.

It would be interesting to see an article that addressed each of her points in detail, explaining how the results she retrieved from various libraries in Part 1 are both valid and desired. What we get is his calling the TechSource editor “spineless” for allowing “such rubbish to be published”.

Near the end of the essay he also takes on Lorcan Dempsey, OCLC Chief Strategist and Vice President of Research. Again, he doesn’t quote, doesn’t give specifics, and doesn’t keep it on an opinion level:

“Have you ever tried reading one of his articles? They are some of the most incoherent and desultory articles in the history of information.”

“…of course, has a blog. He lives for new technology. It seems as if he thinks that any new library or information technology is automatically better than the technology that predates it and it must be implemented immediately, especially if OCLC has a hand in it.”

I use these two examples because I have been reading Karen and Lorcan’s blogs for some time. I saw Lorcan Dempsey present at the Ohio State University Library 2.0 Seminar last year. I can vouch that they have substance behind what they write, and that they are well worth reading. His blanket portrayal of OCLC as existing only to “separate libraries from their money” reminds me of a library director I met who once referred to the OCLC logo as a “swastika”.

And so, about this essay? Read it and recognize that there are some very valid criticisms contained within. Some of these are criticisms that I have expressed over the years. However, beware the hyperbole and the personal nature of his criticism, for they strongly overshadow that which is worth stating.

found via ResourceShelf

Steven Bell – It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad Web 2.0 World : Hidden Treasure or Just More Pressure? (Powerpoint) (Handout)

The title is adapted from It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, the “epic comedy” film from 1963. He likened our (libraries) search for “Library 2.0″ to the frantic search for the “big W” in the film, even showing a couple of clips.

He recommended a Wired magazine article by Chris Anderson called People Power.

A manifestation of the second-generation web is User Generated Content (which strikes me as a good summation of the change taking place).

Business Week’s June 11, 2007 issue of Inside Innovation has an incredible set of charts showing demographics of those using and generating content.

He recommended an article from the v.25#2 issue of Library Hi-Tech called Taking the information to the public through Library 2.0 (abstract only; sounds like an ILL opportunity).

He pointed out a blog post by David Lee King called How Can We Change the Unchangeable, or David’s Rant.

He showed several video clips of library staff scenarios (think of those training movies you see with acted examples):

• Library Director/Admin reacting to a librarian’s blogging
• Co-workers discussing the possibilities of a Wiki
• Instant Messaging as a library tool

His main points were to try out new technology, be open-minded about staff using technology, and recognize that much of Library 2.0 technology involves a time investment, but is otherwise low-risk (and low-cost).

His caveats were to focus on identifying problems needing solutions, find technology with the potential to solve those problems, learn about the technology, and practice.

He referred to an article in the April 2004 American Libraries titled A Dozen Solutions to all Library Problems (which makes some great points with a dose of humor).

Design thinking – libraries approaching problems like designers approaching problems

Library revolution: designers went directly to patrons – how they use library, what they want to do but cannot, etc. They did not use the library staff as a primary resource for the design.

Stages for implementing change:

1. Reflect, analyze, diagnose and design
2. Imagine and visualize
3. Model plan and prototype
4. Implement

Designing Better Libraries (one of Steven’s blogs)

He used an interesting prop to illustrate increased tension associated with technology: a block of wood with a bolt partly screwed into it… he uses a ratchet to tighten the bolt… increasing the tension.

“Reverse the Technology Ratchet”

• consider the opportunity costs
• Balance experimentation and investment of time
• pick your edge – leading or trail
• identify your compassionate pioneers
• reverse mentoring (relatively new library people training established people on newer methods)
• make a plan and let it guide (but there are exceptions)

Website: Steven Bell’s Keeping Up Website

We must learn to evolve

Example: Change. Deal with It. (a.k.a. Jim Carroll’s squirrel experiment)

He concluded with a quote from David Bishop, Charles Deering McCormick University Librarian at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois:

We have watched whole professions go out of business as a result of changes in technology. Libraries are not immune. Change must happen soon and across the board if libraries of all types are to remain viable.

Notes: This was essentially a keynote, and did not go in-depth on any topic. It hit many points, and used a great deal of humor to do so. It was a great start for the conference, and the end quote sets the tone for one of the later sessions.