More than one retired person in this thread, Frances!
There is absolutely no 'naysaying' or bias on my part - just a reflection on the realities of life in the UK public library environment, which is often (very regretably and frustratingly, IMO) slow and far from flexible in accommodating change and innovation.
It is impossible to predict what will come of any initiative, so they need to be evaluted, tried and re-evaluted in the UK environment. If they work, they will need to be maintained and refreshed. Will the start-up and longitudinal funding come from the tradiitonal loans budgets (shift the priorities) or will additional funding be required, and if so, where will that come from?
Having championed and fought through the implementation of many systems to manage 'stuff' (often when told 'we don't need that', but unworkable without), had to nurse old systems to support 'stuff' because there was no funding for replacement, and had to bury some systems which were expensive in time and money to implement, but little used - the systems and the 'stuff' - one feels it appropriate to ask some hard questions.
Equally, it would be relevant to question elements of the traditional 'stuff', 'why are you still doing that? Wouldn't the money and effort be better spent in other, innovative directions, such as these? Have you thought about that? Are you free to do so?
Finally - is this being done to deliver that which current and potential users really need and want? (user centric), to deliver a public service vision of what libraries could be - 'Build It and They Will Come'? (service centric) or to get more people into the libraries to up the the people counts and loans of existing 'stuff' to ensure continuity of service? (preservation centric!). Or possibly all three - or more.
John
