Think Like A Librarian
Organizing, managing and navigating content
Part XII of this series of articles that share useful insights and practical guidance to troubleshoot underperforming self-help and learning systems
When engaging a client who needs assistance with their online resources, I often characterize my role as, consulting librarian. It is typically more meaningful to the staff than “knowledge manager,” “content strategist” or any other label I might choose. I've also noticed that it is generally nonthreatening to departmental subject matter experts and their colleagues from IT.
The stereotypical librarian engenders confidence by projecting competence and calmness — albeit with a useful touch of unquestioned authority (Ssshhh!). I have the education and experience to warrant the label, but the lack of an MLIS does not prevent any of us from thinking like a librarian to invoke the advantages such a perspective can bestow.
Consider:
- Requirements First. Librarians don’t start with an organization scheme and plug resources into it. That is courting disaster. Most of us have personal experience with this flawed approach: If the pantry or garage is difficult to navigate (i.e., it’s difficult to locate resources), chances are an organization scheme was imposed at the outset that became unmanageable as the quantity and diversity of content scaled over time. What started with aspirations of efficiency has become a source of frustration.
- Diversity of Design. The most common misconception about librarianship is that all libraries are clones with respect to the mechanisms of organization, management and navigation of content. Just as building codes set certain parameters that allow architects the flexibility to design wonderfully different structures, libraries are developed within a common framework of standards and best practices, but emerge as richly diverse.
- Tailored Solutions. Librarians focus on the nature of the resources and the needs of the users and refine their approach over time. This discipline fosters discovery and creativity: Observing that only the current issue of a periodical is in high demand leads to a much different scheme than that for a periodical whose past issues are also in high demand.
- Accommodation. Unless the library is serving the needs of a single user (like my tool bench), the scheme for organizing and navigating the library must be a compromise. Put another way: Optimizing for one need will adversely impact others, e.g. the needs of experts and novices are vastly different, yet it may be that both must be accommodated.
- Refinement. Librarians are keen to spot opportunities to add value. When a user engages a topic, it is an opportunity for someone with knowledge of complementary resources to be of service. For example, the screenshot below depicts how contextual FAQs, events, learning resources, policies, etc. can be aggregated. Of course, it is much simpler to do this online than within a physical library.
Some practical insights
- It is unnecessarily inhibiting to imagine that there is one best way to develop and display resources. It is empowering to consider that a spectrum of options are available, each of which is a compromise that balances the needs of target audiences.
- Libraries are not static. Requirements change, so the library must be refined over time. This is why digital librarians must not impose rigid parameters, but plan to accommodate change. For example, a controlled vocabulary of descriptive labels needs to be invoked in such a way as to be refined as conditions change — yet another advantage of working in the digital realm.
- Expect constraints to be overcome. This may seem counter-intuitive, but that which is causing you a headache today is likely to become negligible soon — e.g., browser incompatibility with a format that is growing in popularity, file size constraints for multimedia.
- Don’t expect colleagues to invoke standards (or you will be disappointed). If multiple people will be contributing, standards should be applied automatically. Look no further than file-naming standards: The people who conceive them find the structure comforting and logical; colleagues find them onerous red tape. Voluntary standards are a maintenance and quality-control headache waiting to happen. Critically examine the burden of a standard and be realistic: If you don’t want .wmv files — and do want .mp4 — don’t expect that publishers will comply; think like a librarian and enforce it on the back end.
Directory of All Topics
Browse this directory to discover how to troubleshoot the often thorny problem(s) preventing our self-help, intranet, training, support and/or extranet knowledge bases from being incredibly useful.
************************************************************
Personal Note: This is the most recent article in the series. It is a pleasure to share lessons learned from my (many) years of helping organizations improve the performance of their knowledge sharing investments. In that spirit, your thoughts and feedback will be gratefully received and appreciated.
Robert Norris via LinkedIn or e-mail: RobertNorrisConsulting@gmail.com
Thank you!
