Using risk-reward calculations in the library

Since my post before Christmas on maximising the idea-generating ability of libraries, I’ve been thinking a bit more about how we design space and experiences in libraries, and why.

Risk

Public librarians talk a lot about risk.  Nearly always this is in the context of how to reduce risk - whether it relates to the risk of lost or damaged stock, perverts exposing themselves, patrons complaining to their local Councillor or the ubiquitous repetitive strain injuries.  Patrons often seek to reduce risk in the library as well, although usually it comes to our attention when they seek to reduce risk for others - the risk their children will read books including violence, profanity, or, god-forbid, gay penguins; the risk someone will spill their coffee on a book; the risk someone might use our computers to look at pornography; the risk that children might enjoy themselves whilst at the library.

This concern about reducing risk leads inevitably to myriad rules in an attempt to reduce or, as modern corporate jargon has it, ‘manage’ risk.  So we have rules against eating and drinking; rules requiring photographic ID and proof of address to be able to borrow items; rules about accessing particularly old, fragile or rare books; rules about mobile phone use; rules about who can access what on which computers under what circumstances; rules about talking; rules about not taking library books into the toilets...

Safety

Ostensibly, this inclination to create rules to reduce risk is due to the desire (and pressure) to create, if not a safe environment, an environment with the appearance of safety.  Libraries across the western world pride themselves on being both a welcoming and safe place.  This is a noble aim, but alas it has a fatal flaw.  A safe place for ideas all too often leads to a place for safe ideas.  This is not conducive to a creative, vibrant and intellectually rigorous society.

Risk-Reward

I’d like to propose a different way of thinking about risk in the library.  Instead of simply focussing on risk as something to be reduced, we should start to think about it as one part of a risk-reward ratio.

Taking the risk of patrons spilling food and drink as an example, library managers might weight the risk against the reward gained by allowing patrons to bring in food and drink - allowing them to stay longer and have a more pleasant experience.  Each library or part of a library would need to make this calculation separately - what is right for the Melbourne City Library is not necessarily the same as what is right for the Bodleian.

Once you start looking at things you have already identified as risks in this way, you can make a more rational and realistic decision about whether it is a risk that needs to be eliminated, reduced, managed or ignored.  More than that, however, you can start to look at all aspects of library service through the risk-reward lens.

Organising space

All libraries, particularly public and academic libraries, have problems managing different expectations and needs among their patrons when it comes to noise and space.  Rather than letting this degenerate into an ongoing skirmish between grumpy child-hating old codgers and irresponsible young people with no parenting skills, it may help to think about how we allocate space in terms of a risk-reward continuum.  Many academic, and some public, libraries assign different rules about noise, mobile phones etc to different areas in their buildings.  This is seen as a compromise and usually considered in terms of specific actions that are banned or otherwise restricted - use of mobile devices, volume of conversation, working in groups.  These are useful compromises, but they tend to stem from a desire to reduce complaints, rather than consider the problem in a more systematic way.

A different way of looking at the problem is to consider patrons or students not so much in terms of differing needs or differing tolerances but rather as having different attitudes (at any given moment) to risk and reward.  A student who wishes to do some group study for a couple of hours has calculated that the risk of gossiping instead of studying is outweighed by the potential reward of gaining a better insight into the subject by studying in a group. Or perhaps the potential reward will be to copy someone else’s class notes, or the opportunity to flirt with Jane’s friend Sally.  For another student the risk of not getting any study done in a group is too high, so they might choose the quiet study area to ensure the chance of a reward in the form of understanding Darwin’s writings on Galapagos Island finches.  Perhaps even the quiet discussion that happens in the study carrells is too much for the Professor who needs to immerse herself in an ancient Latin text.  She may calculate that the risk of failing to f