I use pilot holes when I need to put a screw into wood. The adjective pilot is used to suggest that something is a trial or test. In my experience, it is often used as a way to start something that isn’t a test – a pilot project – but that won’t move forward if the project requires a full commitment. That was also my reaction when I read about two Canadian public libraries who are eliminating overdue fines.

The first is the Brant County public library. The CEO did some research, decided fines were impeding use, and decided to eliminate them. The other is Brampton, whose public library is eliminating fees as part of a 2 year pilot project.

Like law libraries, public libraries funding isn’t dramatically impacted by overdue fees. It may not be small but it generally isn’t what keeps the lights on.

Let me first say that, after looking at Brampton Library’s web site and reading past board minutes, I’m not sure why the word pilot is used. If anything, it may hide their light under a bushel basket. They implemented an overdue fine reduction nearly 18 months ago.

I think what was so jarring in these two articles that were published so close together was how one seemed decisive and the other didn’t. In one, there a pretty clear decision: we are making this change. In the other, there was a decision but when it is captured as a pilot, the decision becomes: we may make this change.

A Pilot is a Test

One frustration I have about the misuse of the word pilot is that it can deflate innovation. A pilot project is a test. You don’t know if it will work or not. Pilot is also a verb and can mean to act as a guide, to lead.

Let’s say a law library staff person has a great idea and no-one’s done it before. Not just not in your library but never. This is a perfect time for a pilot project (and some recognitition for your creative staff).

More commonly, especially in law libraries that benchmark, the ideas isn’t new to the profession. It’s just new to you. You are still in excellent pilot territory.

A great source for pilot project ideas is the poster session section at the AALL annual meeting. I saw a number in Washington D.C. this year that made me wonder, “how could I get that to work in my library?”

The law library manager needs to make a mental commitment, though. A pilot project is a test. It’s a way to see if an idea will succeed or fail by actually trying it out. You need to be prepared for failure. The failure of a pilot project is a learning opportunity. It may yield results as rich as if the pilot had succeeded.

From this perspective, a pilot project is not meant to go on forever. It is a test. It has an end date. When I drill a pilot hole, I don’t drill all the way through the board and keep on drilling. I stop. In most cases, you will know if a pilot has failed within a budget year. Again, this is my experience. In many cases you’ll know in a matter of weeks or months.

A Pilot Should Not Be Permanent

For me, the idea of a 2 year pilot sounds wrong on a number of levels. First, a pilot project shouldn’t take that long to shake out answers. Second, a two-year arc is only useful if you’re trying to do year to year comparatives.

Again, I don’t think Brampton is really doing a pilot. I think their decision-making is getting a bad label. But I’ve worked in a couple of organizations where pilot projects were used to avoid making decisions.

I’ll give you an example. Your law library staff have seen another library do something that’s pretty interesting. In fact, lots of other libraries are doing this. There’s a bit of professional literature on it and there cost/benefit analysis is also pretty straight forward. If you make change X, you will experience revenue loss/gain Y:

  • raised our membership law library dues. The annual fee for individuals was going to double. There was some worry about whether we’d lose members. Of course you will lose members. There’s data out there (I think we worked out that our dues increase – from $50 – $100 – would result in about 10% membership loss) that says you will. But you need to generate membership revenue and costs go up. We lost members. And we worked to get them back again with new services.

The goal isn’t to test the waters, though. There is uncertainty but the goal is to effect a permanent change. It’s that uncertainty that trips people up.

If you work in an organization that struggles with decision-making (most likely with accountability and blame), uncertainty is bad. And so pilot projects are used to start a project that is intended to be permanent but is labeled pilot to create the perception that a test.

It would be better for the decision-maker – who has access to data, or other examples to lessen the uncertainty where possible – to just decide: we are doing X. And then do X, like Brant County. For me, eliminating overdue fines is not a project that needs piloting. Either do it or don’t do it.

But wait! What if the pilot project works out? Great. The pilot project’s lifecycle still ends. The point of the pilot is to test, to get more information about how something will work in your environment.

You’re a creative, smart person. As the pilot is coming to an end and you’re noticing that, hey, this is working fine, you can start to plan for a permanent change. When the pilot project ends, you make a decision to implement the permanent change with the benefit of the learning from the pilot.

The thing about do-it-or-don’t-do-it decisions is that a decision isn’t a railroad track. If you make a decision and you don’t get it 100% correct, guess what? You’re normal. We don’t drive our cars in straight lines because the roads aren’t always straight. We adapt to the road and to the things we find around corners.

The use of pilot should signal to your staff (and funders) that you’re willing to try new and innovative things. Then you’ll take in whatever learning there is. And then you will be a decision-maker and decide how to proceed.