It’s been an incredible year of innovation.

—Apple CEO Tim Cook, February 24, 2013¹

The most important objective for Apple is developing innovative products.

—Tim Cook, April 23, 2013²

You may say that Apple only does a very, very small number of things, and that’s working pretty well for them. But I find that unsatisfying. I feel like there are all these opportunities in the world to use technology to make people’s lives better.

—Google CEO Larry Page, January 17, 2013³

Our competitors are not responding with innovation, they’re responding with lawsuits.

—Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, July 7, 2011⁴

Mama, don’t take my Kodachrome away.

—Paul Simon, 1973⁵

If a random sample of individuals were asked to name companies that quickly come to mind and that epitomize “innovation,” Apple and Google might be the most frequently mentioned. Coincidentally or not, both of these companies are also known as technology companies. Apple, of course, is known for Steve Jobs, but also for things such as the first graphical user interface (for the consumer computer market), Mac hardware, the Mac OS and iOS operating systems, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, and iCloud. Google is known as the company behind the most popular Web search engine, other Web applications (e.g., Google Maps, Google Earth), the Android operating system, Google X, Google Glasses, self-driving cars, and any number of other things (see the Wikipedia page entitled “List of Google Products”).⁶ As judged by financial performance, both companies are incredibly successful and true tech giants (regardless of recent stock market performance). Other examples of companies epitomizing innovation could include Microsoft, IBM, GE, Xerox, etc. There are any number of articles tackling the question “Which company is more innovative?” From the introductory quotes above, there are even different opinions, or at least shades of gray, among those at the top about what, precisely, innovation is. The Boston Consulting Group, mentioned in the last chapter, in its most recent innovation survey ranked Apple as the most innovative company in 2012 and Google as the second most innovative (same as the rankings found in the 2010 survey).⁷ As the report notes, “Innovation has many faces, from incremental changes in existing products to entirely new offerings for customers… . The list has its share of well-known technology innovators that have long dominated the top ten.”⁸ A recent Forbes magazine article briefly looked at three well-known tech companies and ranked them in terms of who had the best innovation model; the article’s author selected Samsung as having the best innovation model, followed by Apple, and then Google.⁹

So what, then, is innovation? At its heart, an idea or concept; fulfilled, it’s the idea realized, the end result, an effected change meant to make something—or introduce something—better. Better could mean more efficient, more enjoyable, more appealing, more useful, more … “wow.” It is not the intent here (necessarily) to present technological innovation as synonymous with either technology broadly or new technology more specifically. But things are quite interwoven, and perspectives vary based on whose thoughts are being consulted. In terms of the current crop of end users and their thoughts on technology, one researcher noted, “The views expressed by the Net Generation students interviewed and surveyed … suggest that the Net Generation defines technology broadly. It is not just computers and the Internet, but whatever digital devices or applications … help a student meet his or her needs. A key component of the Net Generation’s definition of technology is customization, or the ability to adapt technology to meet individual needs, rather than vice versa.”¹⁰ This chapter seeks to narrow the question What do we mean by innovation? by sharing insights from the literature and taking a few less direct approaches to better grasp what’s meant by technological innovation in libraries.

To begin, what are some definitions for innovation? It’s challenging to try to explicitly define. As noted by Rowley:

This is not an easy process, because … innovation comes in many guises… . For example, innovations can be small scale and local, or they may involve whole organizations in complete shifts in their strategic direction. The notion of “newness” is often at the core of definitions of innovation, as is the idea that innovation will in some way make things better or improve things… . So what is the difference between an innovation and a change? The shift from a focus on change, to a focus on innovation can be regarded as a matter of emphasis and perspective.¹¹

Regardless of what specific type of innovation is being considered, general definitions of innovation can often be applied. Sourced from both the business and library literature, here are several definitions of innovation:

• “A process that includes the generation, development, and implementation of new ideas or behaviors. Further, innovation is conceived as a means of changing an organization, either as a response to changes in the external environment or as a preemptive action to influence the environment. Hence innovation is here broadly defined to encompass a range of types, including new products or services, new process technologies, new organizational structures or administrative systems, or new plans or programs pertaining to organizational members.”¹²
• “The embodiment, combination, and/or synthesis of knowledge in novel, relevant, valued new products, processes, or services.”¹³
• “Things that change the way we can do what we want to do; [things that] have added value to our daily lives … new, desired, or needed services that add value for university faculty, students, and other scholars… . Innovation is more significantly about what our target audience can do—about the increased capacity of library users to do what they want and need to do in the way that most benefits their productivity, pleasure, and excellence … facilitating the work of our primary constituents in ways that are new and useful to them.”¹⁴
• “Innovation is the multi-stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace.”¹⁵
• “An innovation is a change, in a product, service, process or, more widely, an organization.”¹⁶
• “A wise person once told me that innovation isn’t just about doing things that are new or different; it’s about doing things that in the eye of the beholder (the user, patron, or customer) meet a need that may not have been appreciated before. Innovations are the things that truly alter and improve how we do things; they may even shift our proverbial paradigms.”¹⁷

Let’s look at the corporate environment a moment. Why bother with this environment and its thoughts on innovation? For one thing, there’s certainly been talk in various library and higher education venues about how libraries and academia could look outward to the corporate world and steal a few moves from the playbook—to assist, model, or inform how libraries could adapt to an increasingly dynamic environment, compete for budget allocations, recruit customers (students), etc. The recent recession has emphasized this all the more, as organizations—for-profit and nonprofit alike—seek ever-greater efficiencies. It’s acknowledged up front that corporate giants and nonprofit academic libraries are two different beasts—clearly, the financial and labor resources of the former often allow them to exemplify innovation at a level unattainable by libraries, and certainly on a vastly larger scale. Nonprofits could also be considered to focus more on the broad public good without distractions such as profits and shareholders. The corporate world is also interesting in that it’s somewhat easy to gauge which corporations are successful—whether from a financial standpoint, a “most admired” standpoint, a longevity standpoint, a growth standpoint (employees, customers), etc. There are also examples of former corporate giants that have fallen on hard times. The most notable recent example may be Kodak. “The firm did not act when it should have, which is decades ago. Kodak faced the technological discontinuities challenge… . Kodak did not take decisive action to combat the inevitable challenges… . The organization overflowed with complacency … [despite the fact that] historically, Kodak was built on a culture of innovation and change.”¹⁸ Clearly, some companies are doing some things right, and one of these “right things” could be associated with—and include investment in—innovation.

Complementary to the fact that businesses are often drivers of innovation (and that innovation can help effect positive bottom lines), businesses have contributed to research on innovation and what innovation means. Beginning in 2011, General Electric commissioned surveys of senior business executives in countries across the world. The 2011 survey involved 1,000 participants; the number rose to 3,100 for the 2013 survey.¹⁹ This GE Global Innovation Barometer “explores how business leaders around the world view innovation and how those perceptions are influencing business strategies in an increasingly complex and globalized environment.”²⁰ While innovation is the underlying theme, some variation exists in questions from year to year. Of interest is the fact that one focus area of the 2012 GE Global Innovation Barometer survey was “innovation definitions.” One question asked, “Which two aspects below most closely correspond to your personal definition of innovation?”²¹ The six possible responses, and the survey results, are shown in figure 2.1.

The top response, both in terms of the top choice as well as total mentions, was “the implementation of new processes, products, organizational changes or marketing changes.” This seems to be the broadest definition of those offered. Looking forward to a survey question discussed in chapter 3, two key words in the definition are new and changes. As pointed out by Jeffrey Phillips, of concern was the fact that “no definition above was selected more than 35% of the time… . The first [definition] is a COMPONENT of innovation, but only if those changes add significant value, are truly new and unique and important and relevant to a customer.”²² His thoughts on the other responses are available at his Innovate on Purpose blog.²³ Another GE survey question asked, “In a few words, what would be your definition of business innovation?” Some of the nearly two dozen possible responses included these:

• “New products/those not seen before/invention/creativity”
• “Evolving/adapting current products”
• “Brand new technologies/working with technology/technology improving”
• “New ways of solving problems”
• “Continuous improvement/developing processes/products”
• “Specifically high-tech, eg IT/machinery”
• “Change/harnessing change”
• “New thinking/new philosophies/harnessing IP/idea creation”
• “Reducing costs/becoming more profitable/bettering what has been done before/creating value/improving processes”
• “Responding to customer needs/meeting market demand”
• “Activities/products that benefit society”
• “Combination—products, processes, thinking”
• “Improving/increasing efficiency”
• “Making life better for people”²⁴

Thirty additional definitions of innovation are provided in an entry on the Fresh Consulting blog.²⁵ One of the challenges of defining innovation—or perceptions about how innovative a product or service may be—is how quickly something new becomes standard. New products or services that upon introduction may be perceived as innovative over time become common or routine. As noted by one prominent Google employee:

The greatest innovations are the ones we take for granted, like light bulbs, refrigeration and penicillin. But in a world where the miraculous very quickly becomes common-place, how can a company, especially one as big as Google, maintain a spirit of innovation year after year? …

Even as we dream up what’s next, we face the classic innovator’s dilemma: should we invest in brand new products, or should we improve existing ones? We believe in doing both, and learning while we do it.²⁶

Alex Ross, in looking at past winners of the Wall Street Journal’s Technology Innovation Award, noted:

What is Innovation? Is innovation a concept, a process, an outcome, or something else entirely? …

I noticed an interesting mix of both new products and repurposed technologies. In my own opinion, some of the winning products and services seem innovative, yet others do not. Does this imply that the only difference between an innovative product and a noninnovative product is perception? I propose that to truly assess innovation, we need to look beyond the concept and initial offering, and focus on the impact of a product or service after its introduction.²⁷

While innovations can be categorized or labeled by type, they can also be addressed by looking at attributes. In his work Diffusion of Innovations, Rogers mentions five characteristics of an innovation that influence that innovation’s adoption rate. While the study in this issue of Library Technology Reports did not look at rates of adoption of a perceived innovation, the characteristics are interesting to reflect upon:

• Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes.
• Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. An idea that is incompatible with the values and norms of a social system will not be adopted as rapidly as an innovation that is compatible.
• Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use.
• Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. New ideas that can be tried on the installment plan will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that are not divisible.
• Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The easier it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation, the more likely they are to adopt.²⁸

Rogers notes, “Innovations that are perceived by individuals as having greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability and less complexity will be adopted more rapidly than other innovations.”²⁹ If a new item or service does not meet any of these criteria whatsoever, then perhaps it isn’t perceived as an innovation. Technology adoption rates are skyrocketing. As noted by Lewis (in the year 2000):

Technology adoption rates are an order of magnitude faster than several decades ago, which means that technologies and products are penetrating global markets faster and faster. For example, the common household telephone took over 60 years to achieve 50-percent penetration in U.S. homes. Today, the World Wide Web achieved 50-percent penetration of U.S. homes in a mere five years, and it is expected to reach similar levels in modern industrialized nations across the globe in roughly 10 years. Technology diffusion is occurring approximately 10 times faster today than 50–100 years ago.³⁰

Continuing with the earlier example of Google, one of its original employees, Susan Wojcicki, stated eight principles of innovation—at least in her assessment—at Google:

1. “Have a mission that matters… . When we start work in a new area, it’s often because we see an important issue that hasn’t been solved, and we’re confident that technology can make a difference.”
2. “Think big but start small.”
3. “Strive for continual innovation, not instant perfection.”
4. “Look for ideas everywhere.”
5. “Share everything.”
6. “Spark with imagination, fuel with data… . What begins with intuition is fueled by insights. If you’re lucky, these reinforce one another.”
7. “Be a platform… . We believe … strongly in the power of open technologies.”
8. “Never fail to fail… . Knowing it’s okay to fail can free you up to take risks. And the tech industry is so dynamic that the moment you stop taking risks is the moment you get left behind.”³¹

One of the quotes that started this chapter was from a Wired magazine interview of Larry Page, Google CEO, published in January 2013. The whole interview is fascinating; here are just a few quotes, focused on technological innovation, pulled from that interview:

• “It’s natural for people to want to work on things that they know aren’t going to fail. But incremental improvement is guaranteed to be obsolete over time. Especially in technology, where you know there’s going to be non-incremental change.”
• “But periodically, every n years, you should work on something new that you think is really amazing. The trick is coming up with those products. I could probably give you a list of 10 major things that are wrong with email. I try to maintain lists like that in my head.”
• “If you’re not doing some things that are crazy, then you’re doing the wrong things.”³²

Moving toward a closer library focus, what does the library community perceive as innovation, and specifically technological innovation? First, a few quotes regarding the importance of technology in libraries. As noted by Riggs, “Technology has been one of the primary, if not the primary, factor(s) enabling the library to move forward in quantum leaps. Time cycles have been dramatically reduced … and numerous examples of added value are witnessed daily by library users all because of advancements in technology. Unquestionably, the revolution in library services has been driven by the evolving technology.”³³ Echoing this, working with leaders of its member libraries, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) published a scenario set anticipating the research environment in 2030 and how libraries might fit into this environment. As noted in the report, “Technology is considered the driver of much of the transformative change impacting research libraries,” with a participant noting, “Technology is a critical driver impacting how academics communicate, do research, collaborate, and how libraries create access, archives, and living content.”³⁴ Within libraries, innovation can be seen from many perspectives, some more direct than others. Chapter 3, focused on the original survey and analysis, will interweave references from the library literature on innovation. Prior to this, a few indirect methods looking to better understand innovation are offered. Indirect approaches such as these include looking at the use of the word innovation in library job advertisements, in awards, within strategic plans, and in conferences or conference programs.

To begin, the word innovation appears very often in library position advertisements, whether for positions at the top of the organization or hierarchically lower down. In early April 2013, a scan of the listings retrieved from the ALA Joblist website retrieved 252 job listings.³⁵ The word innovation appeared in the descriptions of dozens of these jobs, perhaps even the majority of listings (the author didn’t count). In several instances, the word innovation appeared in the very first sentence of the job ad, and with several ads, one sentence with the word innovation is immediately followed by another sentence with the word innovation. Figure 2.2 provides several representative, not exhaustive, examples showing the use of the word in job ads. The representative examples are meant to show the word being used in a diversity of positions—whether at the dean/director level, lower-level management, or for positions with no staff management responsibilities—as well as to illustrate use of the word for positions representing the diversity of activities for which librarians are responsible (e.g., information technology, collection development, technical services). The figure also culls from the job ads some other words that are often associated with the word innovation, such as vision, improvement, fresh ideas, and transformation. While some instances of these observed words in the ads seemed to be associated with technology, other instances weren’t.

A second indirect method to further some sense of what’s meant by the term innovation can be gained by looking at awards, regardless of whether said award is specifically focused on innovation or not. Figures 2.3–2.5 attempt to provide insights. Figure 2.3 illustrates several awards focused on innovation; many appear directly related to technology-focused innovation; others reference or could include technology-based innovations (as well as innovations without a strong technological underpinning). The figure includes awards focused on libraries (such as several given by the American Library Association with corporate sponsorship), as well as awards outside the library (such as the Wall Street Journal Technology Innovation Award). In the criteria for the awards, some words and phrases seemed to resonate with the author in concert with the word innovation; such words appear in bold in the chart. Figures 2.4 and 2.5 focus on one award in particular—the ACRL Excellence in Academic Libraries award. The award is given annually to academic libraries at three different levels—university, college, and community college—“to recognize the accomplishments of librarians and other library staff as they come together as members of a team to support the mission of their institution.”³⁶ This award isn’t specifically geared toward recognizing or judging innovation, let alone technological innovation. However, from a logistical standpoint, the list of winners was readily and publicly available, as well as the original applications, and it is an award focused on academic libraries. It was interesting to see whether the applicants for an award not specifically focused on innovation still used the word or made references to products or services that could be considered innovative. They did, and often. All this aside, the ACRL award is highly regarded and is given to libraries that clearly appear to be doing something right. In looking at winning applications from 2004 to 2013 (ten years), the author determined that the word innovation shows up frequently (as well as synonyms for the word). Figure 2.4 shows the number of instances of the related words innovation, innovator, and innovate. Figure 2.5 culls some award application verbiage, presenting representative examples of things that at least appear to relate to technology (or otherwise caught the author’s attention when thinking about technological innovation) and that appear near the use of the word innovate within the applications. Note: the author did not analyze the applications so closely or spend so much time as to try to make value judgments in terms of whether the application authors were explicitly linking the innovation reference to the technology item appearing nearby in the application narrative: only the application authors know.

As noted by Dysart, “Organizations have to have a big detailed picture of where they are going before the strategies to get there can be put in place. And that’s way before technology, people, and other structures are put in place.”³⁷ In addition to awards, innovation also appears frequently in library strategic plans, mission statements, or similar documents or vision statements. Figure 2.6 provides some representative instances of the word innovation in library strategic plans. Solely for continuity purposes, libraries appearing in figure 2.6 were also libraries that have won the ACRL award. In some, but not all, of the occurrences, technology can be construed as an element of the innovation, and in some instances, the word appears in a list of other words that represent key values without alluding to anything in particular, but rather used to help describe core beliefs held at the library.

Award winners and library strategic plan and vision documents provide some insights into what’s meant by innovation. Focusing even more closely on technology, another method to grasp what’s meant by innovation is this publication—Library Technology Reports—a resource helping to maintain awareness of new technologies and their applications, often authored by those in the field. Beginning in 2008, Library Technology Reports was published eight times a year; prior to this, six times a year. The technologies—the described items and services—appearing in Library Technology Reports could often be considered innovative.

Additional insights into innovation come from ALA’s Library and Information Technology Association—in addition to work within other ALA divisions, which have increasingly included technology issues in their programming and focus. Collectively, there are many committees, task forces, and interest groups within LITA and other ALA divisions that heavily focus on technology. For example, the charge for the LITA Next Generation Catalog Interest Group states:

This group gives LITA a discussion space devoted to developments in the library catalog, its nature and scope, and its interfaces. It provides a forum for presentations and sharing of innovation in catalogs and discussion of future directions. Collaborations with other LITA interest groups, such as in the areas of emerging technologies and open source software, will provide opportunities for programming.³⁸

Other interest groups within LITA include Cloud Computing and Virtualization, Emerging Technologies, Imagineering, Linked Library Data, and Mobile Computing. Each of these touches lightly if not heavily upon topics related to technology and innovation. Programs are regularly presented on topics related to innovation; for example, at ALA Annual 2007, one program was titled “The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?” featuring Joseph Janes, Stephen Abrams, and Karen Schneider as panelists.³⁹ In terms of regular programming on technology topics, LITA annually hosts a national forum, which promotes itself as “a 3-day educational event featuring preconferences, keynote, concurrent, and poster sessions that explore leading-edge technologies and their applications in all types of libraries.”⁴⁰ Another example of regular programming touching on the related worlds of technology and innovation would be trends identified by the expert panelists associated with the LITA Top Technology Trends Committee. Indeed, one word often associated with innovation is trendspotting—trendspotting is one acknowledged method of staying abreast of innovation. The LITA Top Technology Trends Committee “hosts a group of LITA members, acknowledged for their expertise in library and information technology, to discuss top technology trends librarians should be watching.”⁴¹ In the LITA National Forum description appears the term leading-edge, and in the description of the LITA Top Tech Trends Committee, the statement “top technology trends librarians should be watching.” This sounds like innovation.

Another input helping to define and recognize innovation is the annual Horizon Report, a collaborative project of the New Media Consortium (NMC) and EDUCAUSE. The annual report, first issued in 2004:

describes annual findings from the NMC Horizon Project, a decade-long research project designed to identify and describe emerging technologies likely to have an impact on learning, teaching, and creative inquiry in higher education. Six emerging technologies are identified across three adoption horizons over the next one to five years, as well as key trends and challenges expected to continue over the same period, giving campus leaders and practitioners a valuable guide for strategic technology planning.⁴²

Emerging technologies, impact, key trends, and strategic technology planning: these words and phrases sound related to technological innovation or the perception of innovation; indeed, NMC’s tagline is “sparking innovation, learning and creativity.”⁴³ The organization’s About page says, “The role of the NMC is to help our hundreds of member universities, colleges, museums, and organizations drive innovation across their campuses. We do that by performing research that catalyzes discussion, by convening people around new ideas, and by building communities that encourage exploration and experimentation.”⁴⁴

Figure 2.7 tries to synthesize the four additional streams listed above into a single chart spanning ten years, from 2004 to 2013. The chart is not exhaustive of all topics presented in the venues above, but it is meant to provide some insights. The range of material covered by these outlets is extensive, and there have certainly been other items mentioned by the Top Technology Trends panelists, additional topics presented at the LITA National Forum, etc. That aside, it’s hoped the chart helps shed some additional light on the topic of technological innovation in libraries, related research and developments, and consumer technologies libraries should watch.

Looking at the chart, it’s easy to pick out some major items across all venues. Clearly the shift to mobile environments has been a big trend, along with the myriad associated topics of interface design, services accessible to mobile devices, geolocation capabilities, app development, etc. Another big trend was social media, virtual worlds, and the library’s presence and services extending into such environments. Blogs, wikis, and RSS appear frequently. Open source software, the development of new discovery systems and services, and gaming were frequently mentioned or presented on. Are all these items examples of technological innovation? The jury—in the form of technology experts and library practitioners presenting on these topics—seems to hint yes.

As noted, trendspotting and technology aren’t the purview of just the venues presented in the chart, or the purview solely of LITA. For example, the ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee “is responsible for creating and updating a continuous and dynamic environmental scan for the association that encompasses trends in academic librarianship, higher education, and the broader environment.”⁴⁵ Associated with this responsibility, the group releases a list of top ten trends every two years (including, but not limited to, technology), most recently in June 2012, where it was noted, “Technology continues to drive much of the futuristic thinking within libraries.”⁴⁶ For the 2012 top ten trends release, some technologies, or items with a strong technological component, mentioned included cloud computing, data curation, digital preservation, online learning environments, social media, new publishing realities, the burgeoning mobile environment and associated apps, and patron-driven e-book acquisition.⁴⁷ The most recent environmental scan, released in April 2013, mentions several items with a technological component (and many of which have additional—and sometimes more significant—components and implications above and beyond the technology component). Examples include massive open online courses, digital humanities, data curation and preservation, librarians producing or assisting in the production of content, virtual collaborative spaces, next-generation technical services, collaborative collection building (e.g., HathiTrust; patron-driven acquisition), mobile technologies, cloud computing, and learning analytics.⁴⁸

Some additional regular surveys, reports, and assessments worth noting include

• various Ithaka S+R surveys and other reports)⁴⁹
• various OCLC research reports⁵⁰
• various publications, resources, and presentation materials from CNI⁵¹
• various Pew Internet and American Life Project research and reports⁵²
• various EDUCAUSE research and reports, such as the ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology and 7 Things You Should Know About⁵³

This chapter has focused the discussion at hand more sharply on the intersection of technology, innovation, and libraries. Combining a few thoughts from the corporate world with additional insights from the library world, it’s hoped the stage is set for the next chapter, which shares results of original research intended to gather and better understand thoughts and perceptions of technological innovation within academic libraries.