![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 16th, 2007
Desk Set, minus EMERAC
Jul. 16th, 2007 06:44 pmI need a reference librarian. On demand. I want one like Katharine Hepburn in Desk Set, with all the facts of the world in her brain or in immediately accessible paper. Not Google, or Wikipedia. Not even EMERAC.
Now, my institution (no, not Arkham) supposedly offers this exact service. It's called "Chat With A Reference Librarian." I have discovered that, although nobly intentioned, it is structured like tech support. You start with a really brain-dead undergraduate "library assistant," and, after a long, meaningless conversation in which it becomes evident that the "assistant" knows nothing, you may or may not be passed to an actual MLS-holding librarian who can answer your questions in thirty seconds. Now, my computer manufacturer has a deal, where you can cut through the Indian Level 1's with flowcharts, and go straight to American English-speaking, intelligent people who actually know the product. Why can't the library have the same thing? The library could enter into Service Level Agreements where, for two hundred bucks a year, you were guaranteed 24x7 99.9% librarian availability, or you start getting service credits. I'd buy one in a flash. A good reference librarian is as important for my work as broadband. And the reference librarian would have the ability to escalate calls to MIS and to the major library vendors, which is what I needed this afternoon.
I pay $40/year for my library service, and nobody calls that undemocratic. So introducing access tiers for library professionals is logical. And, it would employ a hell of a lot of library school graduates. Who's for it?
Now, my institution (no, not Arkham) supposedly offers this exact service. It's called "Chat With A Reference Librarian." I have discovered that, although nobly intentioned, it is structured like tech support. You start with a really brain-dead undergraduate "library assistant," and, after a long, meaningless conversation in which it becomes evident that the "assistant" knows nothing, you may or may not be passed to an actual MLS-holding librarian who can answer your questions in thirty seconds. Now, my computer manufacturer has a deal, where you can cut through the Indian Level 1's with flowcharts, and go straight to American English-speaking, intelligent people who actually know the product. Why can't the library have the same thing? The library could enter into Service Level Agreements where, for two hundred bucks a year, you were guaranteed 24x7 99.9% librarian availability, or you start getting service credits. I'd buy one in a flash. A good reference librarian is as important for my work as broadband. And the reference librarian would have the ability to escalate calls to MIS and to the major library vendors, which is what I needed this afternoon.
I pay $40/year for my library service, and nobody calls that undemocratic. So introducing access tiers for library professionals is logical. And, it would employ a hell of a lot of library school graduates. Who's for it?
Tiered access redux
Jul. 16th, 2007 09:14 pmIn my last post, I proposed tiered access pricing for research librarians. However, it occurs to me that I have already experienced tiered access pricing in medicine, and it's not fun being on the other side.
A couple of years ago, my then-doctor, James Strebig, announced that he would be limiting his practice to 400 patients. Each patient would be charged $2,500 yearly for the privilege of being his patient, in addition to actual medical charges incurred. In exchange, he would personally respond to emails and phone calls, all blood work would be done by an in-house lab, and visits could be up to a half-hour in length. I believe this is called a "concierge practice." Neither Beth nor I could afford $5,000 a year. So we left his practice for one of the few doctors left on our insurance plan, who probably has 1,000 patients on the books, who takes ten days to schedule an appointment (recommending the ER for anything more imperative), visits to whom are about 5-10 minutes long, and whose practice is in a pretty scary part of town.
Is there any distinction between the research librarian model and the physician model that would make one implementation of tiered access intrinsically better or worse than the other?
A couple of years ago, my then-doctor, James Strebig, announced that he would be limiting his practice to 400 patients. Each patient would be charged $2,500 yearly for the privilege of being his patient, in addition to actual medical charges incurred. In exchange, he would personally respond to emails and phone calls, all blood work would be done by an in-house lab, and visits could be up to a half-hour in length. I believe this is called a "concierge practice." Neither Beth nor I could afford $5,000 a year. So we left his practice for one of the few doctors left on our insurance plan, who probably has 1,000 patients on the books, who takes ten days to schedule an appointment (recommending the ER for anything more imperative), visits to whom are about 5-10 minutes long, and whose practice is in a pretty scary part of town.
Is there any distinction between the research librarian model and the physician model that would make one implementation of tiered access intrinsically better or worse than the other?
