This document discusses the implementation of information commons in academic libraries based on Rogers' model of the innovation-decision process. It describes the agenda-setting and matching stages where libraries recognize needs for collaboration and one-stop services. The implementation stage involves restructuring spaces, services, and staffing to accommodate new models. Over time, libraries clarify relationships between services and routinize information commons as ongoing operations. Barriers to successful implementation often occur at later stages of redefining spaces and services or clarifying partnerships.

1. Colleen S. Harris
Summer 2012

2.  “a cluster of network access point[s] and associated
IT tool[s] situated in the context of physical,
digital, human, and social resources organized in
support of learning” (Beagle, 2006, xviii)
 Campus-wide collaboration opportunities
 “allow for access to library resources and reference
assistance with productivity software and
technical support, allowing students to research
and produce final projects in a one-stop shopping
environment.” (Church, 2005, p. 75)
 Social learning (Bandura, 2006)

3.  Initiation:
 Agenda-Setting
 Matching
 Implementation
 Redefining/restructuring
 Clarifying
 Routinizing

4.  Rogers (2003): “agenda-setting occurs when a
general organizational problem is defined that
creates a perceived need for an innovation.” (p.
422)
 Barnes & Noble, Borders, Joseph-Beth
Booksellers
 Informal vs monastic
 Knowledge Delivery vs Knowledge Creation
 Recognition of need for partnerships

5.  “the stage in the innovation process at which a
problem form the organization’s agenda is fit
with an innovation, and this match is planned
and designed.” (Rogers, 2003, p. 423)
 U of Iowa (1992) & U of SoCal (1994)
 Diffusion: conference papers, presentations,
and professional networks
 Other libraries followed early examples by
renovating/redesigning physical spaces to
create information/learning commons areas
(Caniano, 2010; Shill & Tonner, 2003)

6.  where the org modifies the innovation to suit
its needs, & restructures itself to accommodate
the innovation (Rogers, 2003)
 UNLV: locale to diffuse
 UTC Library design to accommodate more
media-based and interactive assignments
 UTC Library staffing & restructuring
 (Learning Commons, Media)

7.  The organization defines the relationship
between itself and the innovation more clearly
(Rogers, 2003)
 Information vs. Learning Commons
 Deeper partnerships with university writing
centers, tutoring centers, and other services
(Schmidt & Kaufman, 2005)
 Example: U of L lack of clarity

8.  When the innovation becomes an ongoing
element in the organization’s activity (Rogers,
2003)
 Innovation loses its identity as a novelty and
becomes a part of the normal planning
processes of the organization.
 Area of Struggle
 Mercer – failure to plan
 U of L – failure to clarify
 UTC – Commons still pending

9.  Model of innovation decision-making a useful
frame to contextualize decision making in
organizations
 Implementation stages most likely to be
barriers to diffusion/success

10.  Bandura, A. (2006). On integrating social cognitive and social
diffusion theories. In A. Singhal & J. Dearing (Eds.), Communication of
innovations: A journey with Ev Rogers, pp. 111- 135. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
 Beagle, D. (2006). The information commons handbook. New York, NY: Neal-
Schuman Publishers.
 Caniano, W. T. (2010). Academic library design: A commons or an
Athenaeum? Library Philosophy & Practice (e-journal), 428.
Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/428/
 Church, J. (2005). The evolving Information Commons. Library Hi Tech,
23(1), 75-81.
 Rogers, E. M. (2003). The diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Free Press.
 Schmidt, N., & Kaufman, J. (2005). Learning commons: Bridging the
academic and student affairs divide to enhance learning across
campus. Research Strategies, 20(4), 242-256.
 Shill, H., & Tonner, S. (2003). Creating a better place: Physical
improvements in academic libraries 1995-2002. College & Research
Libraries, 64(6), 431-466.