by Sharon Morris, ALA, Colorado State Library

Thinking about the future is an odd thing. How do we imagine something that has not yet been? The best thing to do is to open our minds up to new ways of thinking. Below are some strategies to try.

1. Embrace uncertainty. The thirteenth century poet, Rumi, said, “Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.” In other words, to see things differently, one must start with confusion.
2. Take time to dream.  Take a walk, stare out the window, sit quietly and let your mind float from subject to subject. Notice any images or vivid memories that come to mind. Be nowhere and everywhere.  Imagine and dream.
3. Talk it out. Share your ideas about the future with other future-minded people. They will keep you looking ahead. They will help you expand your own thoughts and ideas. Also, listen to them.  It is often easier to see what’s next for others than for ourselves.
4. Join forces. Form a confab with others who read about the future so you can keep each other up on things. Share blogs like this one with each other. Schedule time regularly to talk about new innovations and ideas that each of you is discovering.
5. Don’t just imagine, try stuff.  If you have an idea, do something to make it happen. Jump in and explore. Start small with a pilot project. Even mistakes and failure can lead to wildly unexpected innovation.
6. Read widely. Review blogs, journals, and publications from other fields to determine how they envision the future. This kind of environmental scanning can help you identify common themes and issues that may indicate the salient future trends.
7. Be curious about problems. At times, issues in organizations point to a need for systemic change. Finding opportunities where others see only barriers will open new paths to the future.
8. Give up perfection. We no longer have time to be mired in the drive to do things perfectly. We have to do what is good enough now so we save time to explore what can be.
9. Use our values. When you hear of a new technology, tool, or resource, view it through the lens of our values: access for all, intellectual freedom, privacy, and intellectual property rights. Will the emerging technology or innovation enhance or challenge those values? If there is a conflict, how might you resolve it?
10. See space. When learning to draw, students are encouraged to sketch the space around an object instead of the object. This gets them past their preconceived notions of what a common place object “looks like” and actually gets them to see the real shape. This attention to space rather than the object can apply to many things. You can notice the silence between words as much as the conversation. You can give attention to the time between activities as well as the activities. This builds awareness at a different level and opens us up to perceiving things in new ways.

–If you have remarks or would like to contribute your own strategies for being future-minded, please add them to the comments below.–

by Deborah Rash, Minnesota Chapter

I got good and Future Ready last night by watching American Idol. I was working and tweeting while doing it, but in this case, the multitasking really was distracting from the main event, rather than the other way around.

I am not a fan of American Idol. I could take it or leave it, but most of the time I’m working and tweeting and just can’t pay enough attention. And now that Paula’s gone …

Whether fan or not, I suggest you check out the new judges on Idol this year. And watch a bit of the ingénue Oscar cohosts. Read “The Girl Who …” series. Pop over to TMZ.com every once in a while. And Google that Twitter trending topic you know nothing about.

Because sometimes these things matter, in two different equally important ways.

First, think about some of the trends that have been started by pop culture. Remember “The Rachel,” a haircut that is still popular sixteen years after Jennifer Aniston’s character in Friends got the look? Did you sip a cosmopolitan like the girls in Sex and the City (another late nineties screen-to-sales driver)? Working in marketing or any consumer driven industry these media effects do matter.

Now think about all of the forensic shows: NCIS, CSI, Bones etc. No police procedural is complete without a fingerprinting, particle-grabbing expert. Crime inflicted and mystery solved, packaged in a tight 60 minutes, minus the quarter hour or so of commercials. Why does that matter? Go ask the judge. Literally, ask a judge in a real courtroom and you’ll hear that the way cases are tidied up so quickly on these shows has changed the way that the average person, and thus the typical jury member thinks about how evidence should be presented. It’s been called the “CSI Effect.”

Similarly, if you watch the other ubiquitous type of TV drama, the one set in a hospital, you’ll get a very skewed perception of how medicine is practiced, not to mention how doctors comport themselves. Pop culture has changed the way we relate to health information in some of the same ways that going online to self-diagnose have.

Now you have to pay attention if you work in healthcare or a law firm. And if you sit in or near a cubicle, both Dilbert and The Office commentary might be overheard at the water cooler. So, office workers, listen up.

And if that isn’t enough of you who can glean information on marketing techniques, new product development, customer and client expectations or office politics, the rest of you can learn to love pop culture for a second reason. Think about the twenty-two-year-old new hires you are interacting with or the students you are teaching. The way people think and work bleeds into how they play and relax and sometimes knowing just enough to relate may be enough.

So, in preparation for the future, haircuts and bar drinks, maybe not so important. But jury deliberation and medical decisions and whatever is coming next? Might be.

And really, I’ve always loved that I have an excuse for watching Mad Men and reading People magazine. I’m working!

Deb Rash is a freelance consumer researcher and writer. Previously Deb was Knowledge Manager at Iconoculture and Carmichael Lynch, and had an advertising career at several agencies in Minneapolis. She is an active member of SLA, having served on the Annual Conference Advisory Council, multiple positions in the Advertising & Marketing Division and is immediate Past President of the Minnesota Chapter. 

by John Creighton

20^th Century centralized institutions were created to solve a specific set of problems:  Scarce resources, high production and carrying costs, cumbersome logistics and limited (by today’s standards) communications.

Traditional libraries are a perfect example of a centralized institution. The cost to produce and store books, periodicals and other information was expensive and required a large amount of space. Very few people could afford to purchase their own reading collection or had the shelf space to store more than a few books. The solution: public libraries. Communities pooled their resources (taxes) to provide people with access to information.

When people share resources, it is necessary to create a set of rules and regulations to ensure fairness and equity in how resources are distributed and used. Libraries made rules such as “a person can only check out a book for one week so others have a chance to read it, too.” A system of penalties and, sometimes, rewards were put in place to encourage people to follow the rules.

It was and is the responsibility of public boards and administrators of centralized institutions to decide how to allocate scarce resources. Many public decision makers followed the mass market axiom of, “What will help (or appeal to) the most people for the longest time.” Controversy emerged when people couldn’t agree on how to spend their pooled resources. Should the library buy a controversial book or not?

Centralized institutions also need a set of rules to function as an enterprise. For instance, communities typically could neither afford nor wanted to keep their libraries open twenty-four hours per day. Libraries set hours of operation so people would know when they could access information.

For nearly a century, perhaps more, people have been satisfied with this relationship with public and private institutions because centralization was the most practical thing to do.  People deferred to boards to make decisions; they conformed to the institution’s rules and regulations, and embraced the systems of penalties and rewards (how many readers remember the importance of perfect attendance at school). Our language developed to reflect our willingness (even if we grumbled) to conform to the needs of the centralized institution: Working nine-to-five, working for the weekend, spring break, summer vacation, 10 o’clock news, morning paper.

People’s willingness to conform to the needs of centralized institutions is waning. People have lost their patience with public boards and other centralized decision makers. People aren’t willing to conform to the institution’s hours of operation. They want access to information now, on their own time. And, people ignore penalties and rewards. For instance, few schools award “perfect attendance” and many parents scoff at attendance policies.

Why have people lost their patience with 20^th Century centralized institutions? The problems these organizations were designed to solve are less severe or non-existent.  Put another way, it is economically possible and logistically practical for people to get what they want, when they want, how they want it.

Resources are more abundant than they were in the past. The costs to produce and carry goods are lower. The digitization of books and information is wonderful example of these shifts.  The marginal costs to produce, ship and store a book are all moving toward zero.

People are less interested in pooling their resources to buy things like books because more and more people can afford to purchase and store their own.  People are less interested in the product that appeals to the masses and more interested in products customized to their individual interests and needs. And, there is not as much need for people to agree on how to allocate scarce resources. Don’t like the history textbook the local school board chose for your child? There are several others online and the cost is next to free – or soon will be.

Indeed, people have come to expect options and choices. The idea of “one size fits all” is considered as old as the steam engine train. And, people’s growing expectations are not ending with choice. Increasingly, people expect to design, produce and manage their own experiences.  They will gravitate toward institutions that help them do these things.

21^st Century institutions will need to help people solve a new set of personal and social problems. On the personal side of the ledger, the challenges of growing importance include how to help individuals:

• Identify, organize and create options
• Make informed and satisfying choices
• Gain access to the tools of production, distribution, and collaboration
• Form ad hoc, short term and long term communities
• Sustain action over time.

On the social side of the ledger, the challenges are more difficult because the demand to solve them is not on the forefront of people’s minds. But, to ensure the ongoing health of our communities and our democracy, we will need to figure out ways to bridge differences between an increasingly diverse and segregated society and foster the democratic skills to ensure that we are able to make decisions around resources we still must share.

This is the challenge for libraries and other public institutions. How to make the shift from 20^th Century centralized practices to 21^st Century platform practices.

John Creighton, a Longmont, Colorado leadership consultant, writes on community life and public leadership at johncr8on.com. He can be found on Twitter @johncr8on and on Facebook.  See John’s presentation, “Emboldened Individuals – Platform Organizations” on SlideShare and read more of his work in Dispatches From The Heartland at the Communities at the Washington Times.

by Greg Lambert, Texas Chapter, Legal Division

As I was riding the bus into work this morning, I started putting some puzzle pieces together in my mind, and things that I’ve been reading, watching and preparing came together and made me wonder if the library world’s push to find its place in the age of social communications may mean that it needs to re-embrace its stereotype as a place where you go to quietly study and work without being interrupted. Let me list out the three puzzle pieces I’m thinking about, and then I’ll fill you in on what I mean…

1. Ark Group’s February 2011 conference on Best Practices & Management Strategies for Law Firm Library & Information Service Centers – At this meeting, I will be co-presenting with WilmerHale’s Library Director, Matthew J. Todd, on the issue of reconsidering the physical space of a law firm library from a “Social Engineering” perspective. In other words, using the physical library as conduit for actually talking and sharing ideas with your peers in real face-to-face interactions.
2. Jason Fried’s TEDx Talk on Why work doesn’t happen at work – The e-Discovery manager in my office sent this video to me a couple weeks ago and found it interesting the amount of time, money and effort that law firms spend on work space, only to find out that real work may be going on elsewhere.
3. The University of Arizona’s law library got some interesting press in the student paper saying that the law library refuses undergraduates. It seems that one of the best kept secrets at the University of Arizona is that if you want a place where you can study and actually get something done without interruption, the law library is the place to go.

I’ve been prepping for this Ark Group conference by discussing the idea that the library could re-invent its space and become the new water cooler location for small gatherings of peers to discuss work they are conducting, or just getting to know each other better in a neutral setting. The idea is that lawyers tend to be too reliant upon communications via e-mail, text, chat or phone and have lost touch with those down the hall simply because they don’t reach out to them through those electronic communication tools. Kind of like the trend that many of us don’t know the names of our neighbors where we live… many lawyers have only had brief conversations with their fellow lawyers that office down the hall.

However, when I watched the Fried presentation on the fact that one of the reasons we don’t get work done at work is the fact that we have too many distractions that are related to these exact social interactions:

When’s the last time you had three or four hours to yourself to get work done? It probably wasn’t at the office. A phone call, a co-worker tapping on your shoulder or knocking on your door, a required meeting — all the things prevent you from having long uninterrupted stretches of time to get things done. Good work requires thinking, and thinking requires time.

Fried’s concept is that social interaction has its place and time, but so does uninterrupted work.

The final piece of the puzzle I was putting together this morning was remembering the story of how the undergraduates at the University of Arizona loved going to the law library because they could actually get some peace and quite there and actually get some work done. While the main libraries on campus were bustling with activity, social meetings, coffee shops and other activities, the law library seems to be what we think of when we think of a traditional library… a place you are expected to be quiet.

So, am I wrong in my idea that the physical space of a law library (in this instance, a law firm library) should be transformed away from its traditional approach as a place where you are expected to work quietly and not disturb others, and made into a water cooler setting where people talk and discuss the issues they are working on? Or, should we be promoting the law library as a quiet place to get work done? Perhaps there’s a happy medium somewhere that we could do.

Fried half-heartedly jokes that “Instead of casual Fridays, how about no-talk Thursdays?” Maybe the library can be the exact place for a “No-Talk-Thursday” to happen. To balance the “No-Talk-Thursdays,” perhaps we could then have a “Water-Cooler-Fridays” where the library is set up to handle open discussions on any issue a lawyer wants to throw out to his or her peers.

I’d been pretty wrapped up in the idea that the drop in “foot traffic” in the library was due to the fact that people tended to just think of it as a quiet place to go. Now I’m thinking that maybe people just think of it as a place that has books, and the drop-off in traffic is because they have forgotten that it is a quiet place to get work done. The University of Arizona undergraduates talk about their law library as one of the best kept secrets on campus, and value it for its peace and quiet. Perhaps we’ve also become the best kept secret in our place of work. If that is the case, then I’m thinking that I need to let that secret out and find ways of embracing the fact that we are still an outstanding place to go to get work done and at the same time start working on expanding the library as a place where ideas are shared.

Greg Lambert is the Library & Records Manager and King & Spalding LLP. He is the recent Past-President of the Texas Chapter of SLA.