Introduction
Looking at the article “Tomorrow's Library” one quickly realises it is not an article. Self-described as a 'consultation component', it is styled as a discussion document that functions as a survey of sorts through which stakeholders in the Victorian State public library system are given an opportunity to provide input in four key areas, being Collections/resources/programs, Library buildings, Technology, and Service delivery. The document reflects the task of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Public Libraries (MAC) to review Victorian public libraries and the services they provide today and future expectations of service. The purpose of this review is to look at what this document does right, what it does wrong, and a discussion of what I see are areas of improvement.
What
it does right
The
fact that the MAC is a bi-partisan body is a great move by the
Ministers department. It ensures a continuity for the council that
would otherwise be threatened by any change of government in the
state of Victoria, and allows both parties the opportunity to focus
on a key public service that benefits the Victorian community.
The
document also acknowledges in many places the changing nature of
library services and community expectation. In order to move toward a
relevant and useful library service, the changing face of technology
and the community are necessary entry points when devising what the
future needs of public libraries and the communities they serve will
be. A focus on equitable access for all members of the community is
also a very important and key point for public libraries.
The
four key areas identified are each very vital towards the goal of
building 'tomorrow's libraries', with a significant amount of
cross-over between them. Collections are impacted by technological
advancement in e-publications and devices to read electronic
materials, programs are impacted by library buildings being able to
house and offer space for community use, service delivery is impacted
by technology and staff ability to train for new processes, and
buildings and space within libraries are impacted on changing
community expectations for access to computer services.
What
it does wrong
One
glaringly absent factor in the discussion paper is that of budgets.
Budgets are mentioned within each of the four key factors, but I feel
an exploration on options for budgeting structure could have been
acknowledged in more depth, perhaps as an additional key factor. This
exclusion may be explained by the fact that this discussion paper is
stage one of a two-pronged effort, and the second stage is the one
that focuses on budgets. It is almost impossible to talk about the
future direction of libraries and changing community expectations
without also addressing the changing needs of budget distribution and
government plans for budget futures.
There
are also factors mentioned throughout the document that have unspoken
implications on the staff of libraries and the communities public
libraries serve. Within 'collections, resources and programs', when
discussion procurement the document mentions 'shelf-ready items' as a
potential way to reduce processing cost, RFID provides self check out
to library users – these factors may impact upon staff appearance
of necessity and encourage trends towards down-sizing staff numbers,
because of the appearance of automated services.
The
third key factor discussed is 'Technology' and the segment is a tiny
one compared the others. This may be because technology affects each
key factor in diverse ways, but the documents' treatment of
technology as a key factor is thin at best. Other points of interest
that could be looked at in this section could be licensing
restrictions and their effect on visually-impaired users, as well as
looking towards developing a focus on integrated assistive
technologies throughout the state's library branches. It is also
important to be aware of the digital divide – public libraries are
places where the community can access technologies, but not all
community members are technologically savvy, and placing too large a
focus on emergent technologies, such as tablets and smart phones, may
further exclude sectors of the community who don't have access to, or
the skills to use, future technologies.
In
conclusion, the MAC discussion paper is a good attempt to address
some very central factors when considering the future of public
libraries, and provides opportunity for feedback from stakeholders
involved in the first stage of the review, and while it may seem thin
in certain areas, as a beginning point is is to be commended.
References:
Ministerial
Advisory Council on Public Libraries (2012) Tomorrow's
Library:Discussion Paper. State
Government of Victoria. Accessible here: .dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/95283/Tomorrows-Library-Discussion-Paper.pdf
