Reply to comment

Six years ago, impelled by the "pragmatic need to move forward with technology with some economy of scale," seven Bryn Mawr programs were merged into a single large department. What were the biggest barriers to creating a unified information systems group out of the separated, independent autonomies that were libraries, core computing, administrative computing, language lab, visual resources, telephone and multimedia, which each had a separate budget and separate reporting structure?

Having different points of view "adds value"--it can lead to "plugging more holes and picking up more ideas"--but it also means managing the

• different backgrounds of (and accordingly, different languages used by) librarians and technological people

• different styles of interacting with people, and different orientations toward decision-making ("analytic drivers" see "customer service" very differently, for example, than do "amiable expressive" types)

• different approaches to change and authority (IT people, who often come from non-educational environments, are more used to change--the life cycle of an operating system is less than four years--and to authoritarian decision-making; both may be uncomfortable for librarians. This can cause difficulties when "vision-setting": how much consensus does there need to be? is there no "single wring-able neck"?)

Bryn Mawr is an institution that has long been change-averse; structural innovation has occurred here very seldom; this meant that there were problems of mistrust as the re-organization went forward. Some members of the community feared that the creation of centralized nodes might mean a loss of autonomy. But the claim was made that--because of all the interconnections among us--"it is not possible to have local autonomy without centralization." This echoes the observation made during our October discussion that "there is freedom in being part of a pyramid," where individuals can "rely on the institution to stay in shape," rather than--for instance--participating in a "flock, where one has the burden of being constantly aware."

Discussion turned to questions of translation: How can people who use different languages learn to communicate effectively with one another? We need to recognize that translation is needed, before we can actually perform the act of "carrying over" an idea. We also looked at accurate language use; how evocative is the title of "Information Services," of a relationship that is "less than that of a colleague and a professional, more of someone who serves someone else"? Does it suggest "being bound to serve"?

We also talked about the structure of Information Services: first level managers attend to the needs of their staff; third level managers speak to the users in the community; inbetween are second level managers who need to communicate between staff and users. "But everyone is, in some sense, a middle manager": every one is "in the middle," needing to balance between protecting their clients and getting work done.

Other questions & observations that arose:
* How much control do users have, as builders of the architectural systems they use?
* How much responsibility must autonomous users assume? (The "tech support approach"--that "we take no responsibility for your autonomous decisions" -- doesn't work for academics.)
* How oxymoronic is it to be a historian of technology?
* Isn't information storage and retrieval what a library does?
* "Exceptions need to be exceptional."
* There are "deep religious divisions" within the two main groups we've discussed: librarians and IT folks (think: pc vs. mac, etc).