The title of this entry says it all. We librarians have plenty to say about the over-abundance of committees in our lives. If I were really clever, I'd make up some new jokes.

I'll never forget hearing Shane Nackerud speak at the Internet Librarian conference a couple of years ago. Reminiscing about the origins of his UThink blogging project, he remarked that it was an individual's labor of love and founded without a single committee meeting. The audience broke into applause. Indeed.

A year later, we launched an in-house blogging project in Albany. Our network manager and I built the infrastructure and got the project approved by administration. It's been a success. No committee was formed to get it off the ground.

This sounds like one of those assurances you see in the popular media: "No animals were harmed in the making of this movie." How about, "No committees were formed in the making of this project."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these examples are exceptions.

I have no idea of how many committees we've got here in Albany. I think it's about 20, not counting governance committees. I don't know the exact number because we neither announce nor publicly document them all. Maybe no one knows how many we've got. That's a daunting thought.

Most libraries of any size use a committee structure to accomplish much of their discussion, strategizing, decision-making, planning and projects. What I have to say about this is less relevant (but not entirely irrelevent) to the types of groups that are organized around departmental units or skill sets, e.g., a cataloging, reference or networking team. Unless the library's administrative structure changes, these groups tend to remain fairly stable. I'm also not interested here in how to run a meeting. You can look that up.

Can a committee structure be effective in bringing about the kinds of change that libraries need to pursue? And I mean substantial change. Innovative planning. Risk-taking projects. Re-tooling former successes into new strategies. Nimble actions.

Maybe.

I'm not going to diss the very notion of committees, because there is great value in working formally with colleagues to get things done. Librarians have a reputation for being collegial, group-oriented professionals. (Sometimes we fail miserably at this, but let's not go there.) I still have hope for committees as long as they are tools for progress.

This is the first point I want to make: I don't recommend the formation of an emerging technologies type of group. I have both experiential and philosophical reasons for saying this.

First, my experiential reasons. For five years, I sat on a group called the Digital Library Steering Committee, for a while chaired by our Dean and including most of our movers and shakers. Ultimately, we didn't accomplish much. Sure, we had interesting conversations, and learned a lot, but nothing of any significance was translated into action. Gradually, we became a new level of red tape for getting projects approved. At the same time, various working committees were moving ahead and getting things done. Finally we asked to disband. It may be that you would do a better job with such a group to move from exploration to nimble action, but we weren't able to do that.

Philosophically, I don't like the idea of separating an exploration of emerging technologies from on-the-ground operations. It's much better to integrate the impetus for change within the groups doing the relevant work. Everyone needs to get cracking, not just the people on the bigwig committee. Flexible committee charges and good leadership have the potential to surpass anything that a separate, non-working think tank can do.

I've been thinking about how an operational structure that relies on working committees can be tooled for success in a rapidly-changing 2.0 culture. Here are a few ideas.

Get input for the committee charge. Comments from interested and knowledgeable parties should help generate an effective charge. A charge that is strictly top-down risks a lack of sufficient buy-in and can deprive staff of a sense of ownership.

Set the bar high. Would you rather work on the "Online Public Interface Committee" or the "OPAC Interface Transformation Committee"?

Set aside at least one volunteer slot in the committee membership. Most committees I've been on have had assigned memberships only. While the administrator(s) may have made excellent selections, consider that enthusiastic staff may be out there under the radar.

Let members resign without fanfare, or take time off. If a committee isn't working for someone, or if someone is burned out, then this person's input will not be optimal. Don't hold the committee back. It shouldn't be hard to find fresh blood. If it is, maybe there's something wrong with the committee.

Evaluate annually. At the end of every year, ask the group to evaluate its charge, working methods and accomplishments. Each group should be asked to justify its continued existence. At the very least, add new challenges to the charge based on current conditions.

After a few years, abolish the group. Things will have - should have - changed so much that it's time for a new approach. A comfortable committee, assured of its continued existence, might not work as productively, daringly, creatively or nimbly as one that understands that the stakes are high and the time is short.

The stakes are high and the time is short. This sounds like a good working rule for any committee.