Friday, November 17, 2006
Library (yawn?) 2.0
I did an experiment a while back when this blog first started- I made a pointless post about library 2.0 to see if it would generate any hits. My guess was that there were lots of people trolling the web for the phrase and I joked about using it simply to optimize the blog. Well, it worked.
I really do appreciate all the interest in new technology, and I have even participated in the "Two-point-oh-ificiation" of the field with some of the posts I have made here. But, I don't have the fire under my butt about it that others do, mainly because it's not the core of my own hedgehog concept.
Jim Collins used the phrase "hedgehog concept" in his fantastic book "Good to Great". It refers to to a singularity of focus that he uncovered in all the companies he identified as the great ones in his book. A hedgehog concept may not necessarily be the sexiest thing a company can do, but according to Collins, the hedgehog concept satisfies three things:
By contrast, Collins noticed that many companies failed to develop that singularity of purpose. They were "foxes", companies that tried to do many spectacular things, but that lacked the focus and singularity of the hedgehog. Some of them were remarkably successful companies, but none of them achieved the same success that the great ones had.
The Hedgehog Concept is just one chapter in Good to Great, but I think it is instructive. Happily, Collins has written a short monograph as an addendum to Good to Great, called Good to Great and the Social Sectors. If you have time, read them both. If not, just get the new one. He summarizes the major concepts in the first book for this second volume and then argues that they apply equally in all organizations. Collins believes that success is not about acting like a business, but about the process of going from good to great. Essentially, businesses, non profits, the public sector all share one important element; they are comprised of people who have to work together to get anywhere. Those organizations that do it well, those that go from good to great exist in every sector and share common traits; they have great leaders, they have passionate, disciplined management and staff, and there is a connection to the hedgehog concept from the lowliest lineworker to the CEO.
As for technology, Collins said, "Companies go from good to great because they come up with a great strategy idea, not because they deploy great technology solutions." When it comes to L2.0, that's something I am trying to keep in mind. My goal is to build services that are unique in my community, to do a few things that no one else in town does. And I want to build an organization that markets itself by delivering surprisingly good results, patron after patron after patron. Technology is certainly part of that, but it is important for me to put things in the proper perspective. What I truly have to offer the community is not just access, or a community gathering space, or an online networking environment, but an important engine of cultural and economic development. If getting a Flickr or a MySpace account will further our goals in that regard, then okay- we'll try those things. But (and this is most important), we will only do those things insofar as they fit in with our own hedgehog concept.
I really do appreciate all the interest in new technology, and I have even participated in the "Two-point-oh-ificiation" of the field with some of the posts I have made here. But, I don't have the fire under my butt about it that others do, mainly because it's not the core of my own hedgehog concept.
Jim Collins used the phrase "hedgehog concept" in his fantastic book "Good to Great". It refers to to a singularity of focus that he uncovered in all the companies he identified as the great ones in his book. A hedgehog concept may not necessarily be the sexiest thing a company can do, but according to Collins, the hedgehog concept satisfies three things:
- It is the one thing a company can do better than anyone else.
- It can drive their economic engine.
- It is somthting they can be passionate about.
By contrast, Collins noticed that many companies failed to develop that singularity of purpose. They were "foxes", companies that tried to do many spectacular things, but that lacked the focus and singularity of the hedgehog. Some of them were remarkably successful companies, but none of them achieved the same success that the great ones had.
The Hedgehog Concept is just one chapter in Good to Great, but I think it is instructive. Happily, Collins has written a short monograph as an addendum to Good to Great, called Good to Great and the Social Sectors. If you have time, read them both. If not, just get the new one. He summarizes the major concepts in the first book for this second volume and then argues that they apply equally in all organizations. Collins believes that success is not about acting like a business, but about the process of going from good to great. Essentially, businesses, non profits, the public sector all share one important element; they are comprised of people who have to work together to get anywhere. Those organizations that do it well, those that go from good to great exist in every sector and share common traits; they have great leaders, they have passionate, disciplined management and staff, and there is a connection to the hedgehog concept from the lowliest lineworker to the CEO.
As for technology, Collins said, "Companies go from good to great because they come up with a great strategy idea, not because they deploy great technology solutions." When it comes to L2.0, that's something I am trying to keep in mind. My goal is to build services that are unique in my community, to do a few things that no one else in town does. And I want to build an organization that markets itself by delivering surprisingly good results, patron after patron after patron. Technology is certainly part of that, but it is important for me to put things in the proper perspective. What I truly have to offer the community is not just access, or a community gathering space, or an online networking environment, but an important engine of cultural and economic development. If getting a Flickr or a MySpace account will further our goals in that regard, then okay- we'll try those things. But (and this is most important), we will only do those things insofar as they fit in with our own hedgehog concept.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Learning from Failure
Public service librarians who impress me the most are the ones who are interested in knowing what they are doing wrong. They approach their craft with a sense of humility and openness to learning from their failures. The best ones exhibit a comfort level with their own skills and weaknesses; they understand what they are good at and what they need to work on. Most of all, they don't hide from their weaknesses. By and large these people are comfortable in their own skin; they don't have a lot of insecurity about admitting they don't know something or that they need help. They understand that their work is about the customer and not about them. If they don't know something, their ego doesn't force them to fake it, or to disengage ("we just don't have anything on that"). Instead, they get things out on the table, they let the customer know where they stand and they build a strategy for getting that person what they need, whether it means a referral, calling on a colleague or whatever.
This is high art; something I have not mastered completely myself. I get caught trying to fake it once in a while and it reminds me that this is hard work.
Developing a high comfort level with our own weaknesses is important. No, it's critical. In order to really get down to continuous improvement our outlook has to embrace our failures. We have to be willing to accept the fact that we always have something to work on, no matter how long we've been doing this and no matter how many patrons tell us we are great at what we do. This quote summarizes the quest for service excellence better than I ever could:
This is high art; something I have not mastered completely myself. I get caught trying to fake it once in a while and it reminds me that this is hard work.
Developing a high comfort level with our own weaknesses is important. No, it's critical. In order to really get down to continuous improvement our outlook has to embrace our failures. We have to be willing to accept the fact that we always have something to work on, no matter how long we've been doing this and no matter how many patrons tell us we are great at what we do. This quote summarizes the quest for service excellence better than I ever could:
The best way to ensure the survival, success, and prosperity of an
organisation is for its managers to recognise the contribution of service failure
and the accompanying customer feedback. And sustained excellence will
only be found through a constant search for, and understanding of, failure. It
is only through measurement that this can be achieved. Simply put, it is not
sustainable for an organisation to claim that it seeks to deliver excellent
customer service and then have no reliable, consistent and continuous
measurement of actual service delivery.
From: "Service Failure: Seize the Opportunity"
