1) A survey was conducted of 105 directors of French academic libraries to examine their use of informal communication tools like Facebook, Twitter, SMS, and chat applications with their teams. 2) The analysis found that while over half of the libraries used Facebook and Twitter with patrons, neither was used for internal communication. SMS was found to be a commonly used tool. 3) While "web 2.0" tools were seen as having qualities like sharing and creativity, they were also viewed as lacking depth and risking a lack of authority. If leaders embraced the benefits over the risks, these tools could help transform libraries into more collaborative "Library 2.0" organizations.

1. internal communication in libraries
Are we organizations 2.0 ?
A survey of 105 directors of French academic libraries from October 2011 to February 2012
The evolution of universities is changing our work situations. Modifications of territory, time management and project manage-
ment are blurring our positions. In this situation, times conversation seems increasingly difficult to find. To know if the directors
of our libraries find alternatives to converse with their direction’s team, we launched a survey about their
use of 4 tools of informal communication, including two clearly “web 2.0”. Are you using
Are you using The analysis focuses on complete answers (57% of the libraries). FACEBOOK
twitter with your team ?
with your team ?
share updated informa- why ? why ?
no one is using Facebook for
tion, advice on contingency, internal communication
sort out easy problems
indifferently with business or no one is using Facebook for
how ? how ?
personal phones, but with internal communication
business computers or tablets
more than personal
no one is using Facebook for
where ? where ?
out and inside facilities internal communication
Twitter is rarely used for internal Facebook is not used for internal communication,
communication, despite the 22.03% of libraries despite the 55.93% of libraries using it with
using it with their patrons. The “web” and their patrons. The “web” and “web 2.0” characte-
94.2 % 5.08 %
“web 2.0” characteristics are certainly part ristics are certainly 100 % 0 %
of the explanation. part of the Are you
TWITTER FACEBOOK
ARE You
explanation. chatTing
with your team ?
tEXTING
advice on contingency, with your team ? sort out easy problems, advice
why ? give appointment, inform on on contingency, give appoint- why ?
their presence or absence, sort out ment, share updated information
easy problems, share updated information
how ? with business devices more fre- how ?
with business phone more fre- quently than personal one
quently than personal one
where ? out of the facilities more than out and inside facilities where ?
inside
SMS is a very used tool for internal communica- Twitter is not really used for internal communi-
tion, despite the only 3.03% of libraries cation, despite the 18.64% of libraries using it
texting with their patrons. The “non-web” cha- with their patrons. The “web” characteristic is
racteristic could be an explanation. 69.49 % 30.51 % 96.61 % 3.39 % certainly part of the explanation.
SMS CHAT
qualities faults
caption
32 47 42 28 68 47 27 58
59 44
SMS chat
34 47 58 50 53
49 53
32 63
Facebook Twitter
46 45 46 57 35 54
we asked directors their feelings about these tools in terms
of qualities and faults - numbers are % -
CREDITS
41 40 63 41 48 51 54 Raphaëlle Bats
research & design
raphaelle.bats@enssib.fr
equality intimacy sharing blur authority speed precipitation creativity lack of depth
2.0
Anne-Laurence Margérard
eb 2.0 2.0
w web web design & production
anne-laurence.margerard@enssib.fr
I
Paradoxically, web 2.0 tools are the most and the less appre-
F
L
A Centre
Gabriel Naudé
ciated of these 4 tools for internal communication. If enthu-
2
0
1
2 Bibliography &
siasm for qualities prevails over the fear of faults, so direc-
pictures’ sources
.
H
tors of our libraries could create new forms of hierarchy
e
l
s
i
to be continued...
and management and could make us libraries 2.0.
n
k
i