The Teach First style graduates is a little worrying – not the aspect of getting graduates into the profession, but the references to Teach First which is just fast tracking graduates into difficult teaching jobs with no professionalism or training. In the case of public libraries it may be appropriate for graduates to go straight into the workplace (in what position?), but then the reference to Teach First seems unnecessary. The Teach First concept is much like the one which advocates libraries run by volunteers – that if people are talented and passionate enough they can go in and do a job without training and relevant professional experience/qualifications.

Plus the system described by Tim isn’t an LMS as I would recognise it – sounds more like a circulation system to me. Much compromise on functionality will be needed and that’s unlikely to be a simple process. Waterstones struggled with Dillons and Ottakar when they decided to merge systems as I remember only too well, merging the service levels from 151 authorities will be much harder.

Then there’s the question of financial contributions from each participating authority, standardising membership and item identification (a subject dear to my heart), access to on-line resources (and which ones)…it’s a long list.

And finally I worry a little about long term support and development in a market where there is only one player. All Ireland is one thing, all England quite another.

But it’s a goal worth aiming for. We could start by making sure the physical assets can be shared effectively – by adopting a common RFID standard 🙂 #justsaying

The suggestion that there should be just one Library Management system for public libraries in England, if it is made by the Sieghart review, is a really good one – it’s the best and most constructive idea we have seen for years.

Councils spend a fortune on “ILMS” (Integrated Library Management Systems) and much of that could be saved by the creation of one national system on the internet. Those library authorities normally operate a 3-5 year cycle of tendering and reviewing their own systems and the whole thing could be changed within two cycles – 7 years.

An ILMS is essentially a system of two large files – the first is of books and items that libraries might hold; the second is of people and their library transactions. It is true that twenty years ago it was almost impossible to contemplate creating those files and the communications they implied on a national scale – but nowadays their construction is almost simple – indeed they almost already exist.

An implementation would need strong management because, sadly, one can anticipate it would be resisted – but the driver should be the renovation of the public library service, the public benefit and the savings that can be made.

Councils could (with the help of the LGA) be asked to identify how much both capital and revenue they would plan to spend over the period and be rewarded accordingly by their early participation in the scheme.

There still needs to be a strong vision for what is to be done and what the role of libraries and councils are – but I believe this development would be to the benefit of library users for years to come and is worth fighting for. It would also provide a platform for the amalgamation of other activities that are currently undertaken wastefully by individual local councils (like the negotiation of book supply contracts, inter library transfers and distribution, specification and processing))

I am very strongly in favour – if that helps anyone – let’s put the public first for once.

The pub! Ideal place to study, read quietly, take the tinies for their
bounce and rhyme sessions!

Well, obviously Sieghart is not that dumb, so we eagerly await the full report.

We note, with huge relief and a bjt of hope, that there is no mention
of volunteer libraries being any kind of answer to libraries’
problems,

Meanwhile there is confidence that it will be an action plan rather
than yet another report.

The Library Campaign will consult widely when it comes out. If people
like it, we will campaign to get ALL political parties to sign up to
it, BEFORE the general election. This avoiding the danger of a
perfectly good report/plan being dumped post-election by an
irresponsible minister (2010, Vaizey).

Sieghart’s original article demonstrates that he’s aware that serious
upfront money is needed for the digital offer he envisages (we’d add
that he’ll need to buy off the many companies whose future profits it
threatens).

A lot of it should come from the govt depts that leech off public
libraries to do their work for them – notably the DWP, which sends
people in droves to libraries to get the digital access that saves it
money, the Dept of Education, BIS, etc etc etc.

The danger is that central govt might find itself faced with
acknowledging that public services are very useful, and huge value for
money. And that would never do, would it.