Michelle Boule’s Building a Better Beta post over at ALA TechSource is a really fascinating blog post – definitely worth a read. In the post, Michelle argues that libraries can learn quite a bit from companies that are working with beta products – like Meebo, Google, Library Thing and Flickr. Two things that all of these companies have in common is that they are successful and that they have loyal users. Isn’t this what libraries need? Michelle writes:
Customers are given the chance to test products and make suggestions. They are let in, sometimes from the ground up, and that gives people a sense of empowerment and ownership. Going beta has become less of what you roll out and more of just what you do—a mind set. You could even call it a belief system. How can libraries build beta products and services and develop their own followings?
I guess that I am a bit uncomfortable with asking libraries to provide services via beta products. I think the idea behind the commentary is sound. I understand where Michelle is coming from. However, beta products are often buggy, filled with problems, and are generally not ready for prime time. Is this how we want to put out new products and services to our patrons? Can you tell that I’m pretty conflicted by Michelle’s post? I like the idea. She is really trying to change our mindset – how we interact with our patrons. I think this is important and necessary for libraries. I just wonder about how useful equating better service for our patrons is with beta products. Tim Spalding from LibraryThing agrees with Michelle and comments that “Beta is my license to play, experiment, screw up and create.” I think this is a great mindset for LibraryThing. It may also be a valuable mindset which could help libraries work with their constituents to develop better systems, but I don’t think this is how we want to present ourselves to the public. To me, a beta label means that I should use something at my own risk. Many beta products become successful applications with many loyal users. However, many beta products frustrate users and push customers to use a different service. Additionally, there are many people who avoid having anything to do with beta products because they want to give developers a chance to work out the kinks.
To me, services that are always in beta tend to give the message that they aren’t every really complete – that the designers can’t quite get to the point to which they envisioned their product when they created the application. I think that libraries can find a way to empower users and help them participate and interact with library systems without being in beta mode continuously.
September 10, 2006 at 9:33 pm |
(Hey! Interesting post. Since you picked up my comments over there, I hope you don’t mind if I comment here.)
The most important critique of beta is that it delivers imperfect solutions. This only works, however, if other methodologies do better. We do not live in a perfect world, so you don’t get to compare a methodology of studied, conscious risk-taking with perfection. You have to compare it with reality.
You write of beta products “frustrating” users and “pushing them to use a different service.” If I spoke of most OPACS doing this, would anyone disagree? The frustration is everywhere, and the different service is Google.
This week I’ve been trying very hard to bolt LibraryThing onto the side of a particularly bad OPAC. The depth of its wrongness still staggers me. A big company made it, no doubt employing every technique of traditional software development–specs and meetings and flow diagrams and testing and official releases and project managers and endless meetings. And the result was junk.
And I bet everyone working on the project knew it was junk too. Programmers in big companies always feel that they could design something better if given a little space and a little freedom. And they’re usually right. It’s not that they’re bad at what they do, but that their structure and the methodologies they employ are bad. The way these companies interact with libraries is broken too.
If beta meant sloppy riffs on existing insufficiency, it would be a very bad idea. The hope is, however, that the beta methodologies can shake this up enough to change the underlying problem.
September 10, 2006 at 9:36 pm |
PS: Cool blog. I just got through exploring it. I’d never seen it before, but look forward to reading it in the future!
September 11, 2006 at 4:27 pm |
Tim, thanks for the comments. I don’t mind you commenting here at all – after all, I mentioned your comments. I agree with everything you write -I personally love LibraryThing and think that it is a wonderful product (even though labeled as beta). My only complaint is that there isn’t enough time in the day to keep my collection up to date!!! When you add more functionality, I have even more to do.
Yes, OPACs are a problem – and I know, they can’t even use being in beta as an excuse. But, having a beta OPAC that doesn’t fix the current problems gets us nowhere. A beta product is only as good as the product/service itself. And there are plenty of bad beta products. I have to wonder if my bad feeling about this debate comes from how I interpret the word beta – meaning that this may just be a semantic issue. I personally don’t like to use too many beta products, and generally wait until the beta label is lifted before I tinker. I think that we need innovative thinking to make library applications better, easier to use, etc – and we need to remember that we can never stop working on them. I don’t necessarily think that this always relates directly to the beta concept or mindset.
September 11, 2006 at 10:03 pm |
I am not advocating that we are always in beta. My intent was to use it as a metaphor. (I know you disagree about the word choice.)I want libraries to be able to be flexible with programming. I want to get away from the mindset that simply because we paid money for a trash product we will use it until we have alienated every user we have. We should be able to adapt! Right now we are like the stone wall with a trickle of water over the top. Yes, the water will wear us away, but it will take a hundred years to see a change. I want to be the river.