I was hired by my library a dozen years ago to edit the library's Web site. This was back when the Web was just a couple of years old and Web sites were something new. Being an entrepreneur was expected of me. So coming up with new ideas and new ways of doing things has been integral to my professional practice. Over the years this approach has carried over into all kinds of things, as this blog probably makes clear.

If you're known as someone who's far out there on issues, you generate conflicting reactions. Obviously they're not all positive. I've had clear sailing on certain ideas - blogs and wikis come to mind. I've also had my hands slapped - an example is a committee-produced Web site strategic plan that I lead authored that was attacked from all sides.

It goes without saying that you've got to get out there and hustle if you want to advance your ideas. You've got to stick your neck out. But when? Is timing everything? Even after all these years, I'm not sure.

Here's one example:

Back when Google Scholar first came out, I recognized that it was a Google property and therefore students would use it. It included content from many of the e-journals we licensed, and had the potential to become a useful federated search tool. With an ever-increasing off-campus user base, I reasoned that I should proxy the site and add it to our heavily-used list of Databses & Indexes. Once proxied, off-campus users would have access to the content the library had paid for. I got permission from my supervisor to add the title.

Big mistake. When one of our public services groups got wind of this, the group told me to remove Google Scholar from the list. The reasoning: Google (and presumably any of its properties) is a search engine, not appropriate for our database list. Also, Google Scholar was in beta. Finally, everything we licensed was not included in Google Scholar, so its use would give students a false sense of what they have access to.

I could have argued against each of these points. "Databases" are search engines, too, but just of a different type than Google/Google Scholar, and we've paid for access to content that Google Scholar brings up. Google keeps things in extended beta - in fact, Google Scholar is still in beta. Everything we license appears in none of our individual databases. And I could have pointed to the UT Austin Libraries Web site, which prominently offered on-campus/off-campus links to Google Scholar right on its main page.

But I kept quiet, and simply removed the title. It's clear I was outnumbered and overruled. In such cases, it's best to cooperate.

Now, a few years later, the topic of Google Scholar has come up again. My Action Plan for a 2.0 Library includes a recommendation that my library join the Google Scholar Library Links program. (Hope springs eternal!) A couple of weeks ago, the idea got administrative approval. (Yes!) Also, I've just learned that some of our user education librarians are now teaching Google Scholar. They've been faced with explaining the on-campus/off-campus access dichotomy since the library doesn't offer a proxied link. I've offered such a link as a solution. We'll see what happens.

I'm not sure if my earlier attempt to push Google Scholar has had any effect on the new situation. If nothing else, it raised the issue in my own mind so that I could bring it up again at a later time. Nowadays, the librarians are more aware and accepting of usage patterns that start with Google. I was ahead of my time then, more of my time now.

I honestly don't know how to judge the best time to make a proposal. There are certain guidelines I could suggest, based on various local factors. I could recommend that you get the lay of the land, prepare good documentation, create a propotype if you can, do an in-service session on the topic, cultivate allies, go through the proper channels (or, on the contrary, first invest in skunk works). Any of these things would probably be helpful at least some of the time.

But sometimes you can over-analyze things and get them wrong. At one time or another, I've broken any rule I could come up with and ended out fine. I've been surprised either way - getting things through that I thought had little chance, and getting blocked on seemingly easy things. The risk of repeatedly being "out there" is burnout, and getting burned. You take your chances and play the odds. It's an adventure.