If changing and adjusting to change are constant in libraries, can we benefit by thinking more like “startup” entrepreneurs?
At Internet Librarian last Fall, two business librarians presented a comparative list of typical startup and typical library practices and strategies. Granted, there are exceptions to each, but I certainly recognized familiar habits. The presenters acknowledged that the typical library strategy is sometimes truly best, but there will be situations where a different approach might help.
Here’s the list in brief; I have detailed notes and references if anyone is interested.
- Libraries test products; startups test problems: Is the problem we’re solving really a problem?
- Librarians stay in the building; startups get out of the building: Make sure you know your potential market, not just your existing customers
- Libraries practice “build it and they will come” habits; startups build it “when” they come: Start as small as possible but design for scalability if needed.
- Libraries build for the many; startups build for the few, typically segmenting the audience to adapt solutions appropriate to each
- Libraries learn then build; startups build then learn: Startups show less concern for predicting outcomes
- Libraries pilot full services; startups practice iterative design: Library pilots are often fully developed services with a “kill switch,” while startups start with just enough features to get into the market, then develop as needed
- Libraries collect all data; startups use key data; for example, startups “dashboard” or post one or two key metrics in a visible place to inform and to motivate employees and sometimes customers
- Libraries execute the plan; startups adjust the model: Acknowledge assumptions so you are free to change them based on facts learned from practice
- Libraries focus on features; startups focus on value: Using a “value proposition,” startups promise customers a specific benefit
The hosts of this presentation, Helen Kula from the University of Toronoto and M.J. D’Elia from the University of Guelph, also reported on a Startup Weekend for Libraries that brought together entrepreneurs and librarians to brainstorm library innovations. Some of the ideas they shared included:
- An early literacy app
- Sticky, a tool that hides “naughty parts” of ebooks and can be removed via a password given only to adults
- A project to put local collections from historical societies, museums, etc. into public library catalogs
– Jeff Schneidewind
I’m all for thinking like a startup! There’s definitely areas of significant difference, but I think the idea of starting with a Minimum Viable Product and then doing (and recording!) user testing before deciding to go forward is such a valuable concept for many areas that require ‘future thinking’–new services, strategy and vision, technical and communication workflows, you name it. Iterative planning and response seems like a slam-dunk, in that it saves on resources and refines concepts into what users actually need.
I agree we’re on the right track in “getting out of the building” to understand and connect with folks who aren’t using library services or resources, and we certainly have good, recent examples of iterative design. Regarding testing products rather than problems, I think they’re talking about services as well, like (apologies for using this example) “Text a Librarian” where we made assumptions about user needs that didn’t pan out in practice.
Interesting – and this echoes (in a very succinct manner) what we’ve been hearing. Areas that I think we’re trying to be like start-ups include getting out of the building and practicing iterative design. I wonder if the perception of libraries testing products is primarily about “testing” databases. In our services, are we also testing products?