From ml2sig

Current revision

[edit] To edit pages on this wiki, you must first join the UMOD group ml2sig.

Here is a page to collect thoughts, ideas and minutes from the ML2SIG brown bag held on March 17, 2008.

[edit] Minutes and Notes From the Meeting

March 17: Sue Wortman (Interim Women’s Studies Librarian) on “Creating a Culture of Communication”

Dave Carter convened the meeting and announced future scheduling. On April 21, Molly Kleinman will lead a discussion on using web 2.0 technologies to market library services, and in May, Bill Dueber will lead a discussion on what we could do with a Mirlyn API.

He pointed out that the ML2SIG Wiki is underutilized and asked if there is interest in a workshop on basic wiki editing and use. The response was quite positive and he agreed to plan such an event. It will be separate from the Brown Bag sessions.

Dave then introduced Sue Wortman. She began by saying that, as a result of the conversation on intra-library communications at the previous week’s Update and other conversations, she decided on a conversation which is “less 2.0” than she had originally envisioned, downplaying the technological solutions available to the problem, and focusing more on the problem itself.

[edit] Main Takeaways from this discussion:

1. We don’t necessarily all agree on what a culture of communication is, or should be. In particular, we don’t all want or need the same information, or want to receive it in the same way.
2. There is no one solution. Any steps taken should start out small and increase options, rather than change them. Some people are happy with things as they are, and steps that ML2SIG participants might see as solutions may not be greeted as such by the library as a whole.
3. No real change is going to happen without administrative support.

[edit] Brief Synopsis of Sue’s Slides

Without attempting a precise definition of a “culture of communication,” Sue suggested that it needs to include: openness, trust, respect, tradition, and conscious effort. She then listed elements which contribute to out current means of communication within the library: email, newsletter, face-to-face interactions, phone, library staff web pages, CTools, files, etc.

Sue’s list of possible solutions includes: one central location for archiving, eliminate the email flood (it is interesting to note, however, that only 3 people present said they felt they get too much email), keep information open, use RSS feeds, keep documentation current, and create a communication structure.

There was considerable discussion of what this last point would mean, and of who is ultimately responsible for such a structure (“everybody?”) Sue had examples of libraries which use blogs for their newsletters and of staff web pages from other libraries. These appear in her slides, which have been posted, so no details here, other than to point out that the University of Minnesota uses a wiki, which they began in 2004 in a small way, running it in parallel with their previous system and transitioned to it slowly. A discussion of the pros and cons of wikis ensued, but Sue’s main point here, one that most people present seemed to agree with, is that the culture and not the format is paramount.

[edit] Highlights of the Discussion (One woman’s opinion)

Before thinking about solutions, we need to better define the problem. We need to know what broad categories of information are needed. Three classifications of information were suggested:

1. Things which are necessary to know
   1. Things which are desired to know

1. Things we need to know and know we need to know
   1. Things we need to know and don’t know we need to know
   2. Things we don’t need to know and know we don’t need to know

1. What you need to know quickly
   1. What everyone needs to know
   2. Finding past communication
   3. Finding information pertinent to one’s area
   4. Information designed to get your message out
   5. Minutes of task forces

It was pointed out that with any scheme, what falls into each category will likely differ among individuals.

We talked about barriers to a culture of communication:

1. Increased security over the years has made it increasingly difficult to access information/documentation targeted for one audience, but with possible value to many others.
2. Often, those who have information assume that others either already know it, or don’t want to know it.
3. Technological walls (think CTools: learning curve and narrow range of options for sharing)

Ideas/Thoughts/Suggestions:

• We need something with EASY contribution and EASY distribution. Several people like the idea of the “Big Dump”; a vat with post hoc organization. Needing to classify/tag/use metadata at point of entry could be a barrier to buy-in.
• Changes to the staff web pages have been planned as part of the larger website redesign. Maybe in light of recent discussions, this should be a separate project.
• Reinstate a Communications Committee
• Several Newsletters? Organized by organization, or by importance?
• Implement a Document Management System?
• Rather than large undertakings, concentrate on small steps. Avoid a glut of new things.
• Get minutes out of CTools
• The Newsletter, as a vehicle in place, is a logical starting point. Use the Newsletter as a portal, re-organize the page. Envision it as a newscenter with a broadcaster. Focus on modularity. Include the soon-to-exist library-wide calendar.

[edit] Those who attended this brownbag

• Ken Varnum
• Mars DeRitis
• Becky Dunkle
• David Peck
• Charlene Stachnik
• Liene Karels
• Molly Kleinman
• Catherine Morse
• Martin Knott
• Nichole Scholtz
• Margie Morris
• Kari Tant
• Shevon Desai
• Gary Munce
• Kat Hagedorn
• Elliot Gertel
• David Carter
• Beth Helmbold
• Sue Wortman
• Pam MacKintosh