[NB: This post has been significantly edited, twice. It was almost abandoned [see this post for some context]. It is not meant to be harsh, nor personal, but I think it needs to be addressed. I also want to say at the outset that I respect Ryan and the things he writes. Follow to through the end and hopefully that will be clear.]
OK, I’ll bite. I’ve been “harsh” before.
But if I was your “harshest critic” then you were lucky. And, if you also mean that I was harsh then you have a lot of living to do.
On 12 April I made a comment on a post at Life As I Know It. Jennifer Macaulay, in a post entitled, “Just Say Yes To Technology?“, was commenting on a post by Ryan Deschamps, The Other Librarian, entitled, “What the Library 2.0 Crowd is Trying to Say about Technology.” Ryan also commented there, seemingly taking a bit of minor offense at Jennifer’s and my questioning attitude. Jennifer responded, and due to being the end of the semester I failed to go back and check in.
This morning [yesterday now] Ryan posted a follow-up on his own blog, “Yes, I will Learn with you…“.
If you actually care about any of this, I suggest you go read Ryan’s original post, then Jennifer’s post in response along with the comments, and then Ryan’s follow-up in which I am labeled his “harshest critic.”
Now that that is done, I want to say that although I stand by every word I wrote on Jennifer’s post, Ryan managed to ignore the nice thing I said about him. Maybe that didn’t serve his purpose in labeling me. It might be hard to single someone out as the “bad guy” when they started out with “Well said, Jennifer! I, too, enjoyed Ryan’s post and only had a problem with the same thing as you” (emphasis not in original).
Let me also state that I generally enjoy the things Ryan writes. While my tastes are not exactly the same as his, he often writes things I find interesting. He also generally writes in a far more nuanced way than many others; something I greatly appreciate!
I clearly was short in my comment at Jennifer’s; school and work lives are hectic and time is short. My reply was not exactly nuanced but was an attempt (clumsy perhaps) to add a bit of nuance and perhaps to get some from Ryan.
For the record, here is my entire comment:
Well said, Jennifer! I, too, enjoyed Ryan’s post and only had a problem with the same thing as you. You, though, said what I would have liked to but with kindness and some detail. My rather simplistic critique would basically have been that saying Yes before even asking any questions is stupid; not a good way to start a conversation.
I understood his point to be “Minimize the obstacles, ask only necessary questions, and empower people,” or something like that. But what he actually said about saying yes immediately is extremely simplistic and also ill-advised from a managerial perspective. Do anyone want a manager who immediately says yes to things and then after asking a few questions retracts that yes? Does anyone want to be that manager?
Ryan was frustrated with my synopsis of his point, which I admit is a bit simplistic (see comment re time above) but it was not meant to be dismissive. (Part of) Ryan’s response:
I said technology ought to *begin* with a “yes.” By that, I meant to say “yes, now go get me a business plan.” or “yes, now where does this fit into our priorities and/or strategic plan.” And no, don’t want managers to reduce the questions — I said ask *hard* questions. But say “yes” first. Or, (if I can change my tune just a bit) at least as often as we say “yes” first to a whole slate of other activities.
The point is less about reneging on the need for planning and/or alternative actions and/or critical thinking and more about engaging techies in the discussions that already get a “yes” before ever asking any questions (which I agree is stupid, if by that you mean going into the implementation stage without anything resembling a plan).
In an additional comment he added:
… I’m just a little concerned that the headline and Mark’s read could give the wrong impression if someone didn’t actually read what I wrote. That’s what comments are for anyway right? To clarify, add, participate etc.
Another point here is the need for playspace — namely access to a test server, with all sorts of bells and whistles, including a test copy of the ILS if possible. It’s really hard for people to demo tech projects when people can’t see the possibilities. And out-of-the-box products, especially open source ones, don’t really show well to people who don’t know how something works.
Well, Ryan, I apologize if I gave anyone the wrong impression. Sincerely, I do. But that is perhaps why I prefaced my comment with the fact that I enjoyed your post but only disagreed with one thing. Maybe not very explicit but it seems to be to be an implicit endorsement of people reading your post. Jennifer also linked to your post, as I have done above. I don’t want to turn this into a “he said, he said” thing but think about your complaint for a second. From Jennifer’s post and, thus, my comment on it, and from this post, your exact and entire words—in context—can be found. Did you give anyone that opportunity regarding my words in your post this [yesterday] morning, sir?
I fully support your statement re “playspace” or sand boxes or what have you. And that doesn’t just go for the “techies,” it also applies for the non-systems folks who have responsibility for major systems where perhaps running new and complex reports might crash an ILS or playing with non-standard bib records that do not need to be exposed to “the world.” Been there, done that.
You know what? This is getting tedious. And re-reading Ryan’s post from this morning it is pretty clear that I must not be of “the generation of librarians coming up,” nor do I understand change, and so on.
I’m going to be simple here and even, perhaps, harsh. Ryan, you are seriously oversimplifying this whole issue. It is not only “techies” who get told “No” as you allude. I doubt you mean it, but my minor disagreement seems to have irked you enough that your powers of nuance are escaping you. I never, in any way, was saying the answer should be “No.”
You have turned this into another “us vs. them” dichotomy of which I am very tired. I happen to be on everyone’s side. That is, the side of fulfilling the actual mission of libraries. Having lived a bit longer than you, I’ve seen far too many of these “us vs. them” dichotomies and pretty much everyone of them is bullshit. You started out trying to help bridge one and now, in fact, have helped cement one (or more).
I have tried to get some nuance from this and you have said things a couple of different ways but, nonetheless, still seem to be saying the same thing, much of which I agree with, such as, give people the benefit of the doubt, say yes when you can, prioritize, ….
[cut]
==== new ===
Although the entirety of Ryan’s comments, including his newest post from yesterday, do not support this statement from one of his comments [more above] I am going to focus on it in the spirit of giving him the best interpretation:
Or, (if I can change my tune just a bit) at least as often as we say “yes” first to a whole slate of other activities.
OK, I’m fully in agreement with that. I just don’t think all the nuance he has tried to add begins to point to this. To me, he seems to be claiming something significantly different. And that something I have real issues with.
=========
End the end, I’m giving Ryan the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he really and truly means what he says to be taken across the board. Maybe he’s in an environment where his employees only bring him well-formed and well thought out ideas that they can defend. Maybe only “techies” get told “No” where he is. Or maybe he’s just trying to defend the finer points of his discussion, which, I maintain, are well worth defending. But the world isn’t this way everywhere else.
And, by the way, I absolutely adore “Yes, I will learn with you…”. That is the right attitude.
[For the record: I am of "the generation of librarians coming up." And as far as change management goes, I may not be the best theorist, but having spent over 20 years in the Army being forced to change jobs every 12 months to 3 years, generally maintaining 4-5 jobs at the same time due to "additional duties," none of which you were ever adequately prepared for, and leaving one as soon as you became proficient in it, I think I am fully immersed in the experiential aspect of change management. I have also lived through 2 new ILS implementations, including being responsible for a significant piece of one. Thus, I'd put my skills in that department up against any of whomever your idea of "the generation of librarians coming up" are.]
I sincerely apologize if anyone takes any of this as “harsh.” That is not my purpose, nor my desire. I was only trying to be supportive of the vast majority of Ryan’s points—and still am—
====new===
but Ryan seems to have taken my minor disagreement personal and made it so in reply. Maybe that wasn’t his intention, but seeing as he complained about possible misconstrual of his words in a venue where all of his words could be traced in context and then used [some of] mine slightly out of context with no chance for the reader to see where they came from he did, in fact, do so.
Ryan, I truly don’t want this to be personal. There is no need for that. I fully respect your opinion and agree almost entirely. If what you are doing works for you—and it seems to be—then by all means ignore what I say. I have stripped a lot regarding what I actually think you have said in over 95% of your words on this topic because I think you really meant what you said in one sentence in a comment. I just don’t feel that that is what actually came through from most of your words. Seeing as that is how I am now choosing to interpret your thoughts on the matter the rest of my critique is not important or necessary.
I will assume that your overlooking the possibility of linking to my comment in context was simply that, an oversight. If not, then I ask you to rethink your earlier complaint about Jennifer and my critiques where your words were fully accessible. I see from your About page that one of your main interests is ethics. Thus, I assume you can reason your way through this one.
Ryan, I think you do good work at your blog. Please keep it up!
Sincerely,
Mark
6 responses so far ↓
1 Jennifer Macaulay // Apr 29, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Mark, I think you got to directly to the crux of the matter with the line “Maybe only “techies” get told “No” where he is.” I think originally this is the conclusion that one can draw from the original post – and that to combat the fact that only techies get told “No,” conversations should always start with a “Yes.” However, I would argue that all ideas should be treated with the same thought and consideration regardless of whether they involve technology or not.
I guess the original post bothered me because I don’t believe that techie ideas should be given any type of special treatment. Does the technology really matter? If the idea is worthy, we should implement independent of the technology. I will admit that I am lucky enough to work in a place where techie ideas are not turned down due to their technology. I guess that this is partly because I am the one who supports all technology, so that my reaction to a techie project will probably have a good deal of impact on whether it is implemented or not. It must be frustrating to work in places that do shut down people’s ideas because of technology – and in this case, I can see why people might argue that conversations should start with a yes.
2 Mark // Apr 29, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Thanks, Jennifer. That is one of the conclusions that I came to, also. In fact, if my hunches are correct I may now understand Ryan’s frustration. I’ve been there before and it is absolutely no fun!
But it is not (necessarily) directly related to technology. Sure, some folks automatically say no to anything involving technology and I agree that that is completely wrong. In fact, it may even be unethical. But some people just say no to pretty much anything, even if the resources exist and are available.
I lived this life for a couple years and it literally almost killed me. And, no, this was not the Army. It was in a library.
But you have, again, said it eloquently. No ideas from any particular quarter should get special treatment of any kind, whether it is an automatic yes or an automatic no. There are always individual circumstances and situations of budget, people with constantly crazy ideas, people with well thought out ideas, etc. that may make a case-by-case difference with the end result that certain people get told yes (or no) more often than others. But that should only be based on these kinds of issues and not because they are a techie or a whatever.
3 Angel // May 2, 2007 at 10:04 am
After going through the whole thread, I remembered why it is I stay out and far away from any 2.0 conversations. Eventually, they do become some form of us (those of us who “get it” versus them (who “are simply not up with change, etc.”). After going through it, I don’t think you were harsh. One of the things I often see is that you get labeled (harsh or something else) if you have the audacity to raise questions. However, questions should be raised.
One of the things I asked was if it really as has to be organizational culture problems as Mr. Deschamps points out. Just because it may be a no-brainer for some, it does not follow it has to be for everyone. Of course, pointing that out can be a sin in some circles. As Ms. Macaulay points out, techies just not be getting special treatment. Open mindedness and a willingness to take risks? Absolutely? An automatic blank check in the form of “just say yes”? Nope. Mr. Deschamps does say that one should say yes and look then at any model/proposal/etc. However, I am not one to agree that if it fails you store it for later. Sure, in a tech driven world, a solution may come along the corner. A bust can come around the corner as well. It failed, move on, try something else and learn from the mistake. Overall, he wrote a good post in spite of the little issue of expecting an automatic “yay.”
For me, the question is always one of impact and support. You can want all the technology and widgets in the world. Without the resources (financial, staff, space, etc.), it simply won’t happen. This does not make the ones who say no due to such restraints into bad people or luddites, contrary to what some 2.0 evangelists may say. I have seen my share of what seemed excellent ideas falter because the resources were not there, or it was just not right for our demographic/patrons. There are times when implementing the latest toy is not the sensible thing. If I already evaluated it, tried it, and it did not work, I should feel free to say so without someone else telling me “you just don’t get it.” Period. End of story. That is the detail the 2.0 evangelists often forget in their enthusiasm, and it is a question that Ms. Macaulay raises so well.
Anyhow, this is more than I would usually say on anything like this.
Best, and keep on blogging.
4 Ryan Deschamps // May 4, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Hey Mark, I’m finally coming around to reading this. I wanted to be sure that the mill would have run its course and that I had time to really look at what you had to say.
First, I apologize for having called you “harsh.” My intention was not to paint you in an unreasonable light. What I really meant was “my harshest critic” which — to me — the person with the harshest (maybe even read “strongest” there) criticism of my view. My thinking on this was to go by the rule that if you can sway your harshest critic, then you can sway most everyone else. I was therefore addressing “my harshest critic” which (this time) just happened to have a name (you).
Beyond that, I was not trying to antagonize, really. I was being rhetorical and argumentative, but the intention wasn’t ridicule. Perhaps the tone of my writing should have been better.
Re: “There are times when implementing the latest toy is not the sensible thing. If I already evaluated it, tried it, and it did not work, I should feel free to say so without someone else telling me “you just don’t get it.” Period. End of story.”
There is little in this with which I do not disagree. But I will say that there are alot of “out of the box” products (read Drupal and Joomla) that aren’t very attractive at first and do need the required experimentation time to capture people’s imagination.
And I never say “you just don’t get it.” Never never never. All I am saying is that I think most technology has changed from a high-learning curve, high-cost, marginal-value service to a relatively low-cost, moderate learning curve, valuable service. In that vein, we should say “yes” to technology alot more frequently then we do.
I say even go as far as saying “yes” to the point that you are willing to read a one-page brief on the project, do a bit a Googling and have a conversation that asks some really hard questions. Then, you consider this on the list of priorities. Maybe it’s 569,209. If so, then file the one-pager under “future ideas” (there’s no harm in having the results of someone’s brainchild sitting in reserve for later). You guys don’t think so — that’s fair. But you can’t blame me for asserting my view to the public and responding to criticism.
Oh and I am 11 years of library service and only 2 years in library technology (service). So, I’m not all “library 2.0 rah-rah” really.
5 Ryan Deschamps // May 4, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Dang. That last paragraph got added wrong. It sounded as if I meant that service folks can’t be L2.
I am a service guy AND I do not see myself as a library 2.0 tech rah-rah sort. My thing is “slow library.” And “zero-tech library 2.0 solutions.”
But I do think the slow library and zero tech stuff ought to include an attitude that makes techies feel encouraged to constantly provide innovative ideas.
6 Mark // May 14, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Oh, man, I am so sorry Ryan! I did not expect this to take so long. I guess finishing the semester and then all the LC Working Group “reportage” kept me from getting back to this.
I knew we had come to a consensus so I didn’t worry too much, but 10 days is simply inexcusable!
As to “harsh,” that sounds cool, it was one of the 2 interpretations that I had given it (and the one I preferred and hoped you’d meant), but I still let the stress of trying to finish the semester make my own reply harsher than it might have been.
Ah, “tone;” we both may have missed the mark on that one just a tad.
I fully agree technology has progressed quite a lot and that it should be easier to say “Yes” nowadays than in the past. And I think that things requiring technology should get a “Yes” as often as anything else. Of course, my (perhaps far) broader view of what constitutes “technology” has some impact on the fact that I think all ideas should get a “Yes” where and when appropriate. I, personally, just feel that at least some questions need to be asked first. Certainly not all questions that need asking, and certainly not even questions designed to quash the idea, but a basic feel for what’s needed, why, where it fits in the mission and priorities.
I’m not sure I have my mind around the whole “slow library” thing yet, but it certainly has me enamored, as does the idea of “zero-tech library 2.0 solutions.”
So I guess that in the end we really do pretty much agree, although, perhaps, we are using a couple words with slightly broader or narrower meanings, but not enough to prevent us from communicating.
I apologize for my harshness the 2nd time around. I did not intend it, but it crept in nonetheless. I look forward to meeting you sometime and buying the 1st round. And, well, the 2nd for taking so long to get back to you.
Best,
Mark