Libraries and Innovation

A recent book on innovation states that innovation is often the result of synthesizing or bridging ideas from different domains. It involves not just thinking outside the box but thinking in multiple boxes. Innovation frequently occurs by building on what is already at hand. Conversely, attempts at innovation that focus on developing fundamentally new applications from untested knowledge very often fail.

Fortunately, the field of library and information science is filled with innovations of one kind or another. They range from new services to groups such as New Americans to projects that capitalize on technology, architecture, learning theory, and sociological studies.

But it is one thing to think creatively and envision a new program or development, but it takes even more skill and effort to implement the new idea. The author of another recent book on innovation writes that if we cannot sell the new idea, it rarely travels beyond the inventor's mind.

Research has shown that innovators typically exploit the networked structure of ideas. The process of creating ideas is often based on social interactions. Resistance to new ideas must be dealt with and alliances forged because people frequently cannot understand how the innovation would benefit them or their customers.

There are three examples of innovation in libraries with which the author of this article has been intimately involved. All three reflect the principle stated in the first sentence of the article: that innovation frequently occurs through bridging ideas and building on systems that already exist.

The first innovative development took place among the 11 libraries that are part of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). The members of this consortium are the universities that comprise the Big 10 Athletic Conference. Early in the history of CIC, the library directors decided that they should collaboratively pursue projects that were of importance to all of the members. Resource sharing was an obvious priority and consequently the library directors decided to provide free interlibrary loan service (including free photocopies of articles) to all CIC institutions. This was a significant development because in those early days there were no mechanisms for load-leveling or for easily tracking photocopy and mailing costs. Because OCLC records did not include serial holdings at the time, interlibrary loan service was cumbersome, staff intensive, and expensive. By thinking outside the box, we were able to propose that the CIC's library holdings be treated as belonging to all the members. To facilitate access, software (such as Site Search) needed to be purchased or developed to permit searching of all CIC member holdings by end users -- a very innovative concept in the early 1990’s. Once this virtual electronic library became a reality, this innovation led to the author receiving the ALA's Hugh Atkinson Memorial Award for risk-taking and leadership in 1996.

A second example of innovative thinking was MnLINK, Minnesota's statewide online catalog. MnLINK's vision was to provide all Minnesotans with "access to a wide array of high quality library services and global information resources in a range of formats whenever, wherever, and however the information services are needed." But how could this vision be implemented when all of the state colleges and universities had an existing, very effective online catalog called PALS, the University of Minnesota had its own version called LUMINA, and various college and public libraries had installed various vendor-supported ILS systems? The author was convinced, however, that most Minnesotans had limited access to library collections in the state and that the labor and skill required to search one online catalog after another were barriers to access. Moreover, to be really effective, MnLINK had to combine online access to collections with an unmediated request function for the interlibrary loan of needed materials.

Tom Shaughnessy took his idea for this type of system (the name MnLINK was developed later by the Minnesota Library Planning Task Force) to Joseph Graba, Director of the Minnesota Higher Education Services Offices. Mr. Graba was a former legislator and was a strong proponent of distance learning. He immediately saw the connection between his vision of making online courses available to the people of Minnesota, regardless of where they lived, and Shaughnessy's vision for MnLINK. MnLINK would, in effect, create for them a library without walls.

Thanks to the courage and enthusiasm of Mr. Graba, he invited Shaughnessy to accompany him on a government sponsored trip to Canada with state Senator LeRoy Stumpf. Senator Stumpf at that time was chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee. During this trip, Graba and Shaughnessy were able to convince the Senator of the importance of implementing the MnLINK vision. Consequently, in 1994 the Legislature established the Minnesota Library Planning Task Force to which both Joe Graba and Shaughnessy were appointed. In 1996, the Legislature appropriated $150,000 to support the work of the Task Force, and in 1997, $12 million was appropriated to implement the MnLINK system. In a letter to Tom Shaughnessy dated October 3, 2001, Leslie Mercer, Associate Vice Chancellor for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities wrote:

"At the time I joined the LPTF, the vision for access to library information for all the citizens of Minnesota had been adopted. However, the concept of a single electronic system that would link all types of libraries and library users together was not really in most of our minds. But it was in yours! . . . you had the germ of the idea and helped others to see . . ."

MnLINK's implementation has been slow due to ILS technology issues and resistance on the part of some libraries to capitalize on MnLINK. One writer on innovation in corporations has suggested that those implementing innovations must have the ability to switch gears between cynicism and belief. But "every innovative company . . . is filled with people who are passionate about solving problems." (p 198-9)

The third innovation discussed in this paper centers on an idea originally proposed in a Citizen's League study conducted in 1991. One of the study's recommendations was that a regional library storage center be created to house less-used material and the region’s archival and special collections. While several libraries in Minnesota were reaching their storage capacity with respect to book and periodical collections, the University of Minnesota Library was in an almost critical situation. A large regional storage center was needed. Although University officials gave high priority to building such a facility, two obstacles blocked any action for over a year. The first of these was the lack of adequate space on the campus for such a large building. An off-campus site was not acceptable to University faculty. The second obstacle was the projected cost of such a facility – perhaps as much as $50 million would be required. How could the University persuade the state legislature to approve the sale of bonds for such a project?

At this time, Tom Shaughnessy was the University Librarian and he began to plan ways of overcoming both obstacles. First, the lack of land was addressed by exploring whether the storage part of the building could be constructed underground. The second obstacle was addressed by soliciting support from other college and public libraries in Minnesota which would be likely users of the storage center.

When the engineers determined that an underground facility was both feasible and allowed for future expansion, and when the University could present evidence to the Legislature that the center would be used by a reasonable number of Minnesota libraries, the case was made for legislative approval. In January 2000, the underground Minnesota Library Access Center was opened with an initial capacity of two million volumes, and the above ground building became the Elmer L. Andersen Library for special collections and rare books. Robert I. Sutton in his book, Weird Ideas That Work, states that one principle of innovation is "seeing old things in new ways." He also emphasizes the point that innovation means selling, not just inventing new ideas. "If we cannot sell the idea, it rarely travels beyond the inventor’s mind." Rosabeth Moss Kanter described the process as follows:

"The enterprise required of innovating managers and professionals, then, is not the creative spark of genius that invents a new idea but rather the skill with which they move outside the formal bonds of their job, maneuvering through and around the organization in sometimes risky, unique, and novel ways."