Abstract
Academic libraries are facing many challenges as documents become digital objects on the network and services that were once their sole province are now provided by others at network-scale. Academic libraries will need to identify and develop new services if they are to remain vital. Using two theories from Clayton M. Christensen’s work, the first on different kinds of innovation and their impact on growth, and the second on the “jobs to be done” framework, can guide librarians in this task. Understanding the different types of innovation and the results they bring should shape budget and resource allocation strategies. Understanding the “jobs of be done” framework should provide the means of identifying new products and services that will be valued by students and faculty. The two theories, taken together, can provide academic libraries the means to assure their continuing relevance.
Highlights
Academic libraries are facing many challenges as documents become digital objects on the network and services that were once their sole province are provided by others at network-scale
Understanding the “jobs of be done” framework should provide the means of identifying new products and services that will be valued by students and faculty
As Brian Lavoie and his colleagues put it in their 2014 OCLC whitepaper, The Evolving Scholarly Record: The ways and means of conducting scholarly inquiry are experiencing fundamental change, with consequences for scholarly communication and the scholarly record—the curated account of past scholarly endeavor
Summary
"Big breakthroughs happen when what is suddenly possible meets what is desperately necessary." — Thomas Friedman[1]. Without developing new disruptive innovations that grow the demand for library services, the library is caught in a cycle of sustaining innovations, which improve quality but do not grow the library’s service portfolio, and efficiency innovation which shrink the library’s footprint This is not a good place to be at a time of rapid technological change that offers competitors opportunities to target library users with disruptive products that can replace what the library provides. When academic libraries do make investments in potentially disruptive innovations that, if successful, will grow their programs and attract new resources, they usual implement these services in ways that ignore the lessons of Christensen’s work.[27] The first iteration of a disruptive innovation is by definition not going to be able to meet the needs of high end users and it is unreasonable to expect that high end users to embrace it. Beginning with student research journals and working up to faculty driven fully peer reviewed titles gave the library time to develop expertise and build capacity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
