The Integrated Online Systems conference held in Atlanta on October 18 and 19 included a number of presentations of potential interest to LSN readers.
One of the speakers, John Corbin, Assistant Director for Administration and Systems at the University of Houston, addressed some of the personnel and management issues which arise when incorporating a multilocation integrated library system into an existing library environment. The following statements were excerpted from his presentation:
The introduction of an integrated library system brings with it major changes in the relationships among different functional areas of a library. In libraries with no automation, functional areas operate independently; the addition of some automation results in a degree of interaction among functions; the implementation of integrated automation brings with it the total interdependence of functional units. Such integration requires careful planning and coordination. Staff must be aware of the activities of all other work units. Attention to accuracy and workflow is essential with an integrated system because what were previously isolated errors, slow-downs or blocks in the workflow, can now "ripple" throughout the entire library system. Small problems can become quite large.
As an integrated automated library system brings increased interdependence, it also brings greater visibility. The staff will be placed under increased scrutiny by their peers and the public. "Inner sanctums" are breached, and action or inaction become visible to all.
Shifts in workloads will also follow the installation of an integrated automated system. A blending and reorganization will occur, along with a reduction in the paperwork generated. In shared systems serving multiple locations there is a transfer of some management functions, and a need for the development of new management positions for outreach/ linkage among the separate service points.
With a shared system, the increased workload in areas such as interlibrary lending can be dramatic. The system's ability to identify and locate system wide resources, and to determine their availability, may soon lead to demands for a quicker and more efficient document delivery system.
Implementation of a shared automated library system will decrease the local autonomy of campus departments, branch libraries, or multi-campus libraries. Since local records are entered into a common file, the identification of personnel authorized to make changes in records, the determination of standards, and the monitoring of adherence to those standards all become issues on which consensus is required.
One way to organize the management of a multi-campus automated library system is to locate the system manager, the managers for each of the component functions, system operators, and training personnel in a separate facility close to the computer system. A second way is to house these staff in one of the participating libraries, along with the necessary computer support. There are political considerations either way. The second method provides no separate funds for housing the staff and support facilities but gives the host library the possibility of exerting greater control over the system and system managers. Whatever method of staffing is chosen, -it is essential that there by an advisory commission made up of the directors of the participating libraries.
An integrated library system comprises a complex set of equipment, software and people which provides opportunities for cooperation and communication. To fully exploit its opportunities may require a reorganization of the complete library situation from top to bottom.
In conclusion, Corbin stated that the introduction of a multi-campus integrated automated library system at the University of Houston has brought changes in the libraries' requirements for entry-level staff and has increased the need for continuing education for existing staff. There is now much more emphasis on computer literacy for library positions.
N. A. Huttner, Deputy Director of the Cleveland Public Library, addressed a similar situation in recounting that library's experience in implementing an online system in a multi-library setting.
In 1976 the library began a search for a circulation system and a data base. Data Research Associates, Inc., of St. Louis was chosen to provide both. In 1980 online patron access catalog capability was added. However, the card catalog remained in place. By December 1982, the data base of some 2 million records was loaded. All 31 branches and the main library were online for circulation and patron access catalog by December 1982.
Cleveland Public Library (CPL) is a major research library with 1.2 million titles and 7+ million tags searchable or the system. The question was, how a library such as CPL could share an integrated system with a suburban library system. Following a tentative cost analysis, a contract was devised for cooperation within a network system with the parent library providing advice and training to new members.
The resulting network handles some 5 million circulations a year. In addition to the more obvious benefits, automation has also promoted cooperative weeding and collection management. However, it has been difficult to ensure that member libraries retain their individualities and continue to serve their clients' unique needs. Is it necessary that all members follow the same uniform rules? Cost often dictates the solutions while organized standards remain the objective. The thrust toward cooperation continues.
Among the questions that must be faced in such networks are: who owns the data and the data base; what happens to libraries who want to leave the system; and how can member libraries be represented in the OCLC data base if they don't use OCLC cataloging? How large can a regional system be? What are the practical geographical limits? Huttner concluded the presentation by emphasizing the importance of finding answers to questions of how individual library autonomy can be retained in an atmosphere of reasonable cooperation, and how library staff can continue to provide personalized service to users after the implementation of a cooperative automated system.
Stephen H. Salmon, President of Carlyle Systems, Inc., Berkeley, California, discussed how new and emerging approaches to integrated online library systems such as data processing and remote time sharing are changing the scope and definition of an integrated online system. It may soon be feasible to combine selected modules from integrated systems with a single function system to configure a unique package tailored to a library's particular needs. These separate modules could then be interfaced to function as a single integrated automated library system.
Salmon described an integrated system as one in which two or more modules work off the same data base. The functions might include: acquisitions, cataloging, serials control, circulation, online patron access catalog, catalog maintenance, authority control, ILL, union list, reserves, collection development, special collections, spine labels, and newspaper index, as well as management information on all of the above. To expect a system to include the entire list is unrealistic, but current RFP's received by Carlyle Systems have included all of them. Salmon commented that unrealistic expectations on the part of libraries often lead to unrealistic promises by vendors.
Available functional capabilities are only just beginning to meet the needs of libraries in terms of software and hardware development. To date, system hardware has been based on minicomputers. A new approach, being used by Geac among others, is to use multiple processors for discrete operations similar to distributed processing systems. In distributed processing the systems can run independently using appropriate software. For example, one machine handles general functions separately from the data base management functions. The hardware can be optimized for function. The advantages of this type of system are the cost efficiency of standalone independent operation and the ability to run the various functions under different operating systems.
Data base management functions run on a separate machine. The same can be done for other functions using a modular design including an interface processor, a remote processor, and a data base processor. Enhancements are possible because the microprocessors use parallel processing. The micro enhancements, based on single board chips, are capable of performing multiple functions with high utility and lowered costs.
At present, this a la carte or modular approach to configuring an automated library system is a possibility on the horizon rather than a solid option. It is coming, but cannot be achieved until the different system vendors agree to cooperate and work to that end. The approach requires that the terminals of one system serve as terminals to the other systems. The advantage for libraries would be that they would be able to choose from the various vendors, the functional modules which best suited their individual needs.
