Running Libraries like Start ups?

tag=blogpostweek6

In his white paper, Think Like a Startup: A white paper to inspire library entrepreneurialism (2012), Brian Matthews takes (academic) libraries to task for what he perceives as stagnation.  He argues that libraries need to adopt the attitudes of start-ups and entrepreneurs.  His suggestions would lend a certain flexibility and agility to libraries and their services.

While he certainly has many wonderful ideas, Matthews ultimately left me a burning question: "are entrepreneurial or market ideas fully appropriate for libraries?"

Matthews frequently touts the culture of the startup yet notes that 9 out of 10 start-ups fail.  They offer high levels of risk and with a few monolithic exceptions to date (Google, Amazon, Facebook) even the successful ones don't necessarily have a long life.  This is probably partially due to the ephemerality of Internet culture, shifting tastes, or the inability to keep up with technological change.  Myspace, Netscape Navigator, Alta Vista, and Pets.com were once all high profile start-ups, but in retrospect all seemed to burn the candle at both ends (or be crushed by monoliths with more money).  Matthews argues that we can avoid these failures by being constantly iterative as the best start ups are.  Though I wonder how much the success of our flagship start ups has to do with iterative design and how much has to do with stamping out competitors.

Furthermore, start ups don't tend to have a thousand year history.  Libraries can't (and shouldn't) just shrug off their legacy in favor of new innovation.  Certainly, there are things that libraries do now that others won't.  That's why there is still a need for libraries.  Going back at least to Carnegie, part of library culture is a kind of altruism.  Altruism has never been friends with market ideas.  If we start to think in more enterprising terms, it's important that we don't lose sight of our public service attitudes. 

Ultimately, I think Matthews tempers his argument by talking about the need for both microscopic and telescopic thinking.  But I think it's important to remember that the market thinks in terms of consumers, while the library thinks in terms of people.  Matthews suggesting expanding R&D and worrying less about assessment -- but we must remember that R&D is about artificially stimulating consumption.  R&D gave us Legos for girls (as though Legos didn't already appeal to girls) and new Coke.  Again, I don't think that Matthews is wrong, just that we need to temper R&D with assessment.  I think the key through all of this is balance.  The paper tends to get overly excited about possible innovation and often leaves care behind.  It's understandable why it would do this: if we're too careful, we may not make the leap towards introducing 3D printers in our libraries and running along the cutting edge.  But some care is useful.

Yes, there are wonderful ideas to be pulled from the world of Internet start-ups, but we need to be careful about how pick and choose.  We need to remember that start-ups are more likely than us to get investors and I think we need to remember that we are not an enterprise but a public service. 

Update: Well, scratch that last statement.