Playing Less, Still Fearing Mistakes

So, since we're nearing the end of the (first) semester for Project Players, I'm wondering how we all did. Do we get grades? (prizes don't count) Perhaps more to the point, do any of us get incompletes? (And I have to wonder who, if any, of my co-workers will see this post.) I'd say I've gained some really valuable experiences from the course. Bloglines and del.icio.us are part of my daily routine now. Blogging has become something of a habit as well, but the lack of feedback is a bit of a deterrent. Flickr won't be getting too much use from me. LibraryThing doesn't do it for me either, although I may experiment more later. Ditto with Wikis.

But if you're seeking nominations for praiseworthy blogs, I happen to like Pinky's (excellent organizational style and layout) and Retiring Guy (great writing quality). Belated nominee: RDmpl for the absolute best use of a blog to promote an underused library resource-- government documents. He's got me trying something similar here and here. (About my nominees, well, I haven't ventured too far afield from the South Central Library System blogs. Who has the time?)

And speaking of fearing less, here's a link to a recent article in the New York Times (gotta admit, that Bloglines feed is still paying dividends) about the value in making mistakes and learning from them. It talks about the schizophrenic way we look at mistakes ("Mistakes are how we learn" vs. "Failing publicly can be a crushing blow to a fragile ego") and how when it comes to decision-making, at least in business, we increasingly emphasize the outcome rather than the process.

The article goes on to cite a June, 2006 Harvard Business Review article by Paul J. H. Schoemaker and Robert E. Gunther (available at your local library or online via EBSCOhost) that explores areas where deliberately making mistakes (such as testing false assumptions) can be fairly low-cost and hugely profitable. One of the keys was finding areas where decisions are made repeatedly ("environments where core assumptions drive large numbers of routine decisions") rather than rare decisions an individual or company would make only once.

So, how can we, as libraries, "profit" by making deliberate mistakes? We could start by examining where we make the majority of our decisions: Buying materials/selection? Cataloging? Shelving? Checkout? Internet sign-up? Reference? Answering phones? What are the core assumptions that underlie our current decisions? Where can we make changes? Who can make those changes? How do we measure results? How do we interpret those results?

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Could we apply the deliberate mistakes philosophy to our Project Play course? What were the assumptions going in about who would sign up? Would the results be different if, instead of targeting the permanent/professional staff, we were to allow shelvers and checkout desk staffers, maintenance/custodial workers, Friends of the library, volunteers, etc. to sign up instead?

And what are the results for the current group? How are we being measured? What assumptions were made at the start of this learning experiment? What adjustments (mistakes) can be made?

Too many questions perhaps. Naturally I don't have the answers.

Comments are, as always, welcome.