Being a “Really Useful” Embedded Library

My kids watch a lot of Thomas & Friends.  For those of you not familiar with it, it’s a children’s show that features talking steam engines trying to be good and useful people… er, anthropomorphic trains.   The trains are always trying to be “really useful engines” (i.e. taking on important jobs that make them feel good and demonstrating that to the owner of the train yard). 

A new initiative kicked off at the company I work for and pretty heavily involves the department I support.  A lot of our people have been drawn off normal assignments to participate.  I wasn’t chosen.  And while it’s an ego blow, I really don’t have the skills the project needs and that’s ok.  Still… I’m not feeling like a “really useful engine.”  As an embedded librarian, my work often doesn’t engage in the day to day work necessary to complete projects like this.  However, I’m wondering what will happen with my job since it’s not critical to this initiative. Because if you’re not a “really useful engine” in Corporate America, your job is in danger. 

So I’ve been thinking about ways to manipulate the situation participate using the skills that I’m good at.  I think there might still be a place for what I do because:

I inform what the teams completing the work are trying to do, not what they are doing. 

Let me explain. 

I don’t (and probably will never) affect the daily work of teams I support.   It’s highly technical and it’s not my role.  However, hopefully what my work does is steer their thoughts and strategy about the final shape that daily work builds up to.  The work I do guides the form of the final product.

Or at least that’s what’s I keep telling myself to make myself feel like a “really useful embedded librarian…” 

Packaging Research

Sometimes you arrive late to the party.  I had another minor epiphany this week that I should have had years ago.

I’ve been struggling with how to do more forward looking research.  Ideally, my work is supposed to be balanced between reactive requests for information and proactive prognosticating on the future of technology.  The majority of my time, however, is spent being reactive.  It’s actually kind of difficult to do the forward looking work.  By the time I clear out time to research and write a white paper, I often have another three requests which pull me mentally away from thinking about the future.  The distraction creates inefficiency because by the time I’m able to return to the white paper, I have to mentally review the nuances of the topic that I was going to write about. 

The solution, which I should have thought of long before now, is a blog.  Blogs are of lengths that are reasonably fast to produce while still infusing commentary and insight.  And in many cases, the topics I’d like to cover may not lend themselves to the length and rigor reserved for a white paper.   I’m not sure why I haven’t thought about it before now (especially since I do quite a bit of research on social media).  A new colleague in a similar position in another area of the company actually pointed out the solution to me.  Packaging up my intellectual epiphanies and information discoveries in small chunks makes perfect sense for the future oriented work I should be doing.

What would you say ya do here? (Part Duex)

In the space of about a week, I’ve done several introductions to my work and my team.  Each introduction had a different time box from, literally, a minute to around twenty minutes. 

After I had created a few speaking notes for the short version of my shameless self-promotion, it decided it would be a good idea to create three separate introductions I could use in a variety of scenarios. 

The Hit-and-Run: This is a thirty second pitch at a very high level about what I/the team does.  It really doesn’t go into any detail beyond 1) We exist and 2) We find stuff and offer insight.  It’s intended for hallway conversations, initial introductions, and briefly high-jacking meeting when you see an opportunity for shameless promotion.  The point is to be fast, but memorable.  

Speed Dating: This version is meant primarily for meetings where I’m not the spotlight, but someone maybe says “Adam, tell us a little about how you can help.”  Ideally, it shouldn’t take more than five minutes.  It’s more detailed than the Hit-and-Run, and includes deeper information on the types of products we produce, high level examples to give the audience something to associate with, and trigger points on when to engage me/the team.  Because I have a limited time span, I try to compare the services I offer to other services (both within the organization and externally) that they might know about.  Again, the goal is to remember that someone exists to with information resources. 

New Employee Orientation: This is fairly detailed explanation of not only my work, but the team at large.  It shouldn’t take more than twenty minutes (people start to glaze after that point), and is targeted at new employees, people outside the department, and management (as a demonstration of value).  It includes everything above as well as the specific teams I work with, what the other pieces of my team do and how they can help, and a detailed explanation of my/the teams deliverables.  I also bring along concrete examples of research we’ve produced in the past to give an idea of what they can expect when they engage me.  Depending on the crowd, I might also introduce specific information sources people can search on their own.  

Ideally, in creating these three versions of an introduction, one would create the long version first and then reduce it as needed for the other two.  I built my three introductions from smallest to largest and I think doing it that way was more challenging. I wanted to add information to the shorter introductions as I built the longer introductions. 

Of course, each of the scenarios is modable based on the specific situation.  And I keep copies on my laptop and in my portfolio so I can pull them out on short notice for nearly any occasion. 

A little upfront prep has hopefully save me time (and face) down the road. 

What Is Your Value Proposition?

“What Is Your Value Proposition?” By Anne Rogers Director of Research & Knowledge Services at Cargill

This was a timely post on SLA’s Future Ready 365 blog given my rant on value added service last week. 

Of particular interest was Rogers’ bit about the reference interview as added value: During a project to evaluate scientific reference service, I had a key client, a chemical engineer, tell me that one of the most valuable services we provided was to help him refine and express clearly the research/business problem he was trying to solve. We’d been thinking about reference interview skills as a means to an end, not a value added capability in itself. And guess what? The ability to work with individuals or teams to facilitate creation of a clear, actionable problem statement is a critical skill applicable in many areas.

I didn’t think about it during my previous post, but helping people refine their problem/issue/task/whatever is a HUGE value add that I’ve been complimented on before.  Librarians are kind of this weird bartender of information issues that, by listening to people, help them figure out their real problems are, not just what they think they are.  And let’s face it, sometime Corporate America races forward to find the “answer” without really knowing what it’s trying to solve. 

What People Don't Get About Working in a Library

Loved this short article fromThe Atlantic.  

What People Don't Get About Working in a Library