To illustrate the concept of the Web as a platform, O’Reilly diagramed a Web 2.0 “meme map” in which he construed Web 2.0 with several strong advocates, such as “services, not packaged software,” “participation, not publishing,” “tagging, not taxonomy,” and “an attitude, not a technology.”1 Miller set forth the concept of Library 2.0 in a timely article titled “Web 2.0: Building the New Library” by applying Web 2.0 principles “Web 2.0 + Library = Library 2.0?”² He saw Web 2.0 as “a convenient label upon which to hang a range of concepts,” and claimed “there is much of value with which libraries should be seeking to engage.” Though “participation [in Web 2.0] is often seen to be on the part of end-user,” he argued, “for libraries and associated organizations … there is equal scope for participation.”³

Casey and Savastinuk explained what makes a service Library 2.0.⁴ In their words, “Any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently, and makes use of customer input is a Library 2.0 service. Even older, traditional services can be Library 2.0 if criteria are met. Similarly, being new is not enough to make a service Library 2.0.”⁵

Surprisingly, although much has been published recently on Library 2.0, little has been written on how Library 2.0 principles are being adopted in technical services operations.⁶ Some articles have addressed library technical services websites, but the examples studied had few or none of the interactive features that define Library 2.0. In her investigation of twenty academic libraries’ technical services webpages, Groves observed that “the 21st century technical services librarian has access to a plethora of electronic and online work tools from which to choose to complete daily tasks.”⁷ She pointed out, however, that “while authors focus significantly on the public services aspect of online tools, such as databases and Web sites, few articles exist concerning the new methods technical services librarians are employing to complete their tasks.”⁸ She discovered “very little consistency among the 10 libraries that have Web pages dedicated to online tools.”⁹

Mundle, Zhao, and Bangalore, on the other hand, dedicated a study to evaluating cataloging department websites within the consortium of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) libraries.¹⁰ Following up that study, Mundle, Huie, and Bangalore made further efforts by selecting a larger group of research libraries (eighty-seven member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries, including CIC) websites as subjects to validate their four study parameters for evaluating cataloging department websites, namely, accessibility, design and structure, internal documentation, and external resources.¹¹ Perceiving that “cataloging is a dynamic and constantly evolving field,” and “thus, catalog[ing] department Web sites must undergo periodic assessments or evaluations to determine if updates or revisions are necessary,” the authors emphasized that “the efficiency, effectiveness, and user-friendliness of any Web site are the key factors that determine its success or performance.”¹² Their findings indicate that “considerable effort is required to maintain and update [library technical services] Web sites (57.5 percent of the subject Web sites updated within the last three month of study).”¹³

The 2008 Ohio Library Council Technical Services Retreat, “Choosing Our Tools for Tomorrow,” is one of only a few venues in which participants have explored Web 2.0 in the technical services environment, and it included several presentations on using Web 2.0 tools. Among these presentations, Gray shared his experiences of using Web 2.0 tools to increase effectiveness in staff training and pointed out the key concepts in Web 2.0, that is, the focus on the “behavior rather than the actual tools.”¹⁴

Responsibilities in today’s library technical services operations, especially cataloging, are undergoing tremendous changes in both theory and practice. The new cataloging code, Resource Description and Access (RDA), is part of an ongoing effort to improve cataloging standards to address the rapidly evolving digital environment. To speed up the process of bringing meaningful library content out of the hidden Web, researchers such as Gradmann have recommended an integration of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) with the semantic Web technology.¹⁵ At the same time, “the role of cataloger is still in transition,” as El-Sherbini summarized in a review of recent scholarly works on cataloging and classification, “and research in this area demonstrated a definite shift from performing cataloging to a greater focus on management and creating metadata.”¹⁶

At the section management level, a supervising librarian needs to adjust the section’s workflow so it can continue to be productive in this time of change. The process of hiring and training new staff becomes constant and more challenging, since an increasing number of staff have become temporary or nontraditional. The technical services librarian also participates in committee service and may conduct research if in a tenure-track position. Ways to ease management are necessary, as are alternative approaches to better manage multiple responsibilities. Simultaneously, empowering staff and promoting leadership are significant parts of accomplishing the library’s mission. To be proactive is to be more adaptable for success. Equipping oneself with innovative tools, including Web 2.0 and associated social-networking tools applications, can be beneficial.

Diversification is a reality in today’s fast-changing cataloging taskforce. The accessibility and usability of cataloging documentations need to be reconsidered in the context of the emergence of more non-traditional type of employment in cataloging. Documentation made for professional staff may not be easy to use for less experienced or paraprofessional employees. Therefore, documentation needs to be more practical and allow more fluidity. Compiling guidelines that are targeted to specific users and bringing supporting documentation to where people really need it provide a fundamental rationale for taking a Web 2.0 approach.

The point of engaging Web 2.0 tools is simple: to maximize efficiency and improve quality in a collaborative environment. To demonstrate this point, consider the idea of Web 2.0 itself as expressed by people working in collaboration. Two revisions of the opening statement on the Web 2.0 article from Wikipedia were captured in February 2009:

The term “Web 2.0” describes the changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aim to enhance creativity, communications, secure information sharing, collaboration and functionality of the web.¹⁷

The term “Web 2.0” refers to a perceived second generation of web development and design, that aims to facilitate communication, secure information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. Web 2.0 concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-based communities, hosted services, and applications; such as social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies.¹⁸

This language resonates with librarians, since the goals enumerated parallel the goals of libraries. Lankes, Silverstein, and Nicholson, in their essay on libraries as conversation and the participatory role in librarianship, acknowledged that “the Internet and newer tools that empower the users seem to be aligned with the library mission.”¹⁹ They suggested that librarians should “focus on the phenomena made possible by the technology,” among which the most important is that “the library invites participation.”²⁰

As Dye pointed out, “collaboration in the office isn’t anything new, but a number of digital content tool developers have realized that corporate communication is content in its own right. This means that, like effective intranets, the work process needs to be easy for workers to initiate and manage on their own in order to encourage participation and interaction.”²¹ This is why “static corporate intranets, crowded with indexes, files, and folders, are being infiltrated by a host of web-based applications designed to make them more dynamic and interactive.”²² The rapidly evolving nature of libraries and the work of technical services suggest that Web 2.0 tools are exceedingly appropriate to exploit.

The Non-Roman Cataloging Section in the Ohio State University Libraries’ (OSUL) Cataloging Department is responsible for cataloging materials in all formats that are published in non-Roman scripts, including East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean), Middle Eastern (Arabic and Turkish), and Slavic (Russian and Ukrainian). The section works closely with subject specialists and librarians in branch libraries possessing non-Roman collections. The workflow is maintained by one coordinator librarian (referred to as the “section coordinator” hereafter), two full-time cataloging staff, and ten to fifteen student employees. The student employees include a graduate administrative assistant (GAA, a twelve-month 50 percent appointment with a stipend and tuition waiver), hourly paid students, and work-study students. Student employees are considered an important group of the workforce, supplementing full-time staff at OSUL. In the Non-Roman Cataloging Section, the cataloging workflow of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Turkish materials is handled solely by student employees. They are considered nontraditional employees because

• they do not have any prior library science disciplinary training;
• few of them have had library working experiences before coming to the cataloging department;
• their working hours are irregular. Student employees arrange their hours around their class schedule; and
• their job terms vary and are seasonal.

Managing these employees is therefore different than managing regular staff because training is ongoing and job assignments require readjustment over time.

The section coordinator is responsible for several duties, including streamlining workflows, setting priorities, hiring and training new staff, and troubleshooting. In addition, he participates in higher-level professional activities such as the national Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO), library committee services, and research.

Three aspects of the work environment led the section coordinator to seek more effective ways to manage, communicate with, and support the section staff in their work and development:

• The workflow is highly varied and complex in terms of languages, formats, corporate and local cataloging conventions, interfaces, and changes in cataloging procedures.
• Most supporting staff are nontraditional employees.
• The supervising librarian assumes multiple roles in section management, training, and other professional activities.

As the section coordinator, the author has used a number of Web 2.0 tools to address the challenges of a varied and complex workflow, a large number of nontraditional employees, and the many demands on a manager working in a demanding environment with competing responsibilities. These tools include a blog, Google Docs and Google Calendar, Delicious (http://delicious.com, social bookmarking tool), Flickr (www.flickr.com, an online photo sharing tool), and a wiki. Each of these tools will be discussed along with problems, limitations, and suggestions for their use.

Facilitating the section activities with new Web 2.0 tools gives staff and student employees a new way to contribute their knowledge and skills. The section coordinator guides staff and student employees in using the blog, Google Docs, and other Web 2.0 applications to find and organize useful cataloging procedures and to select and share resources. He also uses these tools to aid staff training. The following are some specific applications of Web 2.0 tools in the section.

The innovative changes implemented in the Non-Roman Cataloging section have brought some obviously supportive results. Specifically, using these Web 2.0 tools has increased the efficiency of section cataloging workflow, reduced the time necessary to train new student employees, allowed staff to take on new responsibilities, and saved time for the librarian to devote to more professional activities. The author finds it difficult to quantify the improvement outcomes, especially if only productivity (number of titles cataloged per month) is taken into account, without considering the transformation in cataloging staff responsibilities in recent years and the irregularity of student employees who contribute significantly to the throughput of materials. The section observed a steady cataloging productivity and a small increase in average of monthly productivity (AMP) by student employees during and after implementing the section blog and other Web 2.0 tools. Table 1 shows a 12 percent increase of AMP in 2007, the first year of implementing the section blog, and an 8 percent increase of AMP in 2008, when more Web 2.0 tools were introduced to the section (both increases in percentage use the 2006 outcomes as a benchmark). Innovative training methods and important work and professional activities newly assumed in each year are also listed as achievements.

Improvement in staff participation and learning is a continuous aim. Library staff tends to keep up with old technology because of their highly specialized job responsibilities. People need time to feel comfortable and be willing to work with new tools. However, broadening one’s knowledge and sharpening one’s skills have become increasingly important in today’s changing library services. OSUL believes in the long-term benefits of fostering learning skills and insight by creating new options and alternatives.

OSUL encourages its librarians and staff to explore new trends and emerging technologies. Click! Technology and Libraries in Action, which began in 2007, is a series of technology workshops open to all library faculty and staff and covers topics that include blogs, wikis, Second Life, and social networking sites. However, the workshops received a low participation from full-time staff in comparison with librarians. An internal follow-up survey in the Non-Roman Cataloging Section revealed that neither of its two full-time staff have attended one of these workshops (both, however, indicated on the survey that they would like to attend one in the future). Every library management unit should provide time and opportunity for its staff to try out new tools, brainstorm with new concepts, and think about better ways to do the unit’s work. The Non-Roman Cataloging Section blog is currently the only blog maintained by a technical services librarian on the OSUL weblog site. With the successful experiment of using the blog and other Web 2.0 tools to empower student employees, the section as well as the cataloging department will encourage more full-time staff participation in this initiative.

Blogging and other Web 2.0 methods have enhanced the OSUL Non-Roman Cataloging Section’s ability to do its work. These tools have enabled greater efficiency and collaboration, improved section management, and improved the accessibility and integration of cataloging resources. The approaches discussed here are based on a unique cataloging section, and many attempt to solve specific problems and local issues. They might represent one model for cataloging management in other libraries that have a similar staff situation and are choosing Web 2.0 tools to enhance their work. These tools are only new in the sense of our making use of them in a cataloging department. Learning and investigation will continue. Although this is a small initiative in a small and busy section, the OSUL approach may serve to stimulate more conversation and collaboration in the library community about how to make technical services more effective in this time of change.

Technical services are in a period of transformation. The demand for the convergence of library bibliographic organization and the new Web infrastructure is reshaping the future of all library services. Before and even during implementation of any new standards or programs, a large amount of work can be done to improve the current system. This is especially true in the library technical services and cataloging areas. Now is the time to carefully reassess the operating environment of technical services and to move beyond practices that developed in a paper-based environment. Technical services librarians need to become involved in the Library 2.0 conversation to gain greater understanding of what the opportunities are and to take a more participatory role in making new library policies, decisions, and initiatives.