Competency H

Introduction

Technology provides both opportunities and challenges for information professionals. The benefits are numerous and substantial. Technology enables librarians to build systems that make it easier than it’s ever been to store and organize materials and for patrons to find and access information, wherever the user might be. It connects information professionals to patrons and to each other almost instantly over any distance. It allows for preservation of materials, or at least their digital artifacts, and in the case of rare or fragile materials, it allows for access that might otherwise be prohibitively damaging or impractical.

The challenges technology poses are significant as well. Both hardware, such as scanning equipment and 3D printers, and software can be expensive to purchase. As technology advances, information organizations must either pay to upgrade or replace hardware and software, or make do with outdated technology that might not be compatible with systems and programs used in their own or other institutions. Many software programs now require monthly or annual subscriptions, so information organizations often no longer even have the option of sticking with older software to save money. The rapid pace of technological advancement also means information professionals must always be learning new hardware and software, which can sometimes involve costly training.

Despite the challenges, technology is indispensable to information organizations. Competency H tells me that as an information professional I must be able to research and decide which types of technology and which specific products are best for my institution’s particular needs, and to be able to use that technology myself and to assist patrons in learning and using it.

Identifying Tools

The cost involved in purchasing new hardware and software, plus the time it can take to learn to use it and to train others on it, make it difficult for most information organizations to upgrade their technology regularly. It is therefore critical that any information professional involved in purchasing decisions put care and effort into researching available technologies and comparing options for solutions against one another.

The first step is defining a problem that needs solving or a need that requires addressing. This might involve employees, such as the need to improve their communication or productivity, or it might be related to patrons, such as improving access. Only once the information professional understands the nature of the problem can they then identify the type of technology that can best solve it.

Identifying the right technology for a particular problem means doing research. Information professionals should read up on the latest technology trends in the industry and beyond and be able to think creatively about how to potentially use different hardware and software to tackle different challenges.

One way they can do this is by looking to other institutions to identify new technologies or new ways of applying existing technologies. For example, Hedrick et al. (2020) stressed “the importance of improved methods and practices for digitization” (p. 249) of natural history collections (NHCs) specimens, and proposed a “two-pronged vision for digitization, which we term Digitization 1.0 and Digitization 2.0” (p. 243). Succinctly put, Digitization 1.0 is the effort to digitize physical specimens, while Digitization 2.0 involves creating additional data and metadata from the digital assets generated in Digitization 1.0, preferably with the help of machine learning and automation. If NHCs are successful in implementing machine learning and automation in Digitization 2.0, this could well have applications in other collections and information organizations.

Evaluating Tools

Once the information professional has identified the type of hardware or software that fits their needs, they can compare the different products available within that category. They should establish criteria against which to evaluate each offering, guided by how they intend to use the technology to solve their problem. Cost is one of the most obvious criteria, but even this can be difficult to compare. For example, a subscription-based software program might be cheaper over the short term and thus be better for a fixed-period project, while a program the information organization can buy outright might be cheaper if the intent is to use it long-term.

Information professionals should also evaluate technology by how easy it is to learn and use. A piece of hardware or a software program that is too complex will not be used, at least not without potentially lengthy and/or expensive training. This is true for both staff and patrons, but in the case of the latter, it can be particularly burdensome to keep having to train new patrons. Implicit in this evaluation is the need to have deep knowledge of who the audience for the technology is, what types of tools they prefer to use, how they prefer to use them, and what their capacity and tolerance are for learning new technologies.

Other factors to consider when evaluating technology and tools include, but are not limited to, its set of features, available technical/customer support, compatibility with other tools and systems, and frequency of updates. When the information professional has assessed all of these criteria and the evaluation is complete, they can make an informed decision as to whether it is worth purchasing the tool for their institution.

Using Tools

While the evaluation might identify the best tool for a particular user group, my coursework showed me that I must then become adept at the tool so that I might both use it effectively myself and explain and teach it to others.

The list of types of tools an information professional must show proficiency in is a long one. It includes content management systems, library management systems, databases, information retrieval systems, scanners, and increasingly, makerspace hardware such as 3D printers, just to name a few. In my coursework I had to use many different tools to design and build services for patrons. Some of these projects required several different types of tools, such as graphics tools for creating and manipulating images, layout tools for creating assets that contained those images, and recording and editing software to use those assets in a demonstration or tutorial.

A pair of class projects required me to build LibGuides, which is a common discovery platform in libraries and one that a future role could well call upon me to use for creating user guides. I also learned to use a wide variety of content platforms for blogs, presentations, and videos, such as Wordpress, Google Sites, Prezi, and Vimeo. Collaboration tools I worked in include Google Docs, Zoom, San José State University’s Canvas platform, Slack, and Sharepoint. On the more technical side, I built databases in ContentDM and WebData Pro, and worked in a Cortex-based digital asset management (DAM) system for my internship.

While many of these sites and programs have overlapping purposes and functionality, each also has its own interface, design, options, tools, etc. I thus learned the importance of spending time with a tool and taking advantage of documentation, user forums, FAQs, tutorial videos, and other resources to use the technology optimally and to produce the best product or service for the intended audience.

Conclusion

Technology has become such an integral and ingrained part of information organizations that both staff and patrons might take it for granted. However, both groups of users will notice when a tool does not work correctly, is too hard to use, or doesn’t serve its purpose. It is the information professional’s job to make sure this situation occurs as infrequently as possible. They must put in the effort to identify the best technology for the problem the institution is trying to solve or the need that must be addressed, then evaluate the options according to meaningful criteria. They must also learn the technology themselves so they can use it effectively and train others to do the same.

References

Hedrick, B. P., Heberling, J. M., Meineke, E. K., Turner, K. G., Grassa, C. J., Park, D. S., Kennedy, J., Clarke, J. A., Cook, J. A., Blackburn, D. C., Edwards, S. V., & Davis, C. C. (2020). Digitization and the future of natural history collections. Bioscience, 70(3), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz163