Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently said, in a Senate debate on cutting the proposed 1991 budget for the Library of Congress, "We in this country have to recognize that the security of this nation, the defense of this nation, rests on more than things that explode. A secure, strong nation also depends on people being able to have books to read, to be able to gather and retain information" (Hall, 1991).

This is well understood by Eastern European countries, where the demand for printed material from the West has increased dramatically in recent months -- particularly material about democratic forms of government. Just as we have seen startling changes in government structures in the past months, we have also seen tremendous changes in information techno-logy in our own lifetime. We have seen storage technology advance from paper and microfilm to magnetic and optical technology. Where we once could store only a few hundred characters per cubic inch on paper, we can now store billions of characters per cubic inch. Transmission capabilities have made similar startling advances. We've jumped from the 50 words per minute of telegraphy to billions of words per minute via glass fibers, and 100 trillion words per minute is within reach. Processing has gone from hundreds to billions of instructions per second, and parallel processing makes the rate practically limitless. Yet our own ability to process all this information is virtually unchanged over the ages. Our ancestors could process symbols at about 300 units per minute -- and so do we. This limit, and our inability to speed up our own processing capacity, is symbolic, I believe, of our greatest challenge. That challenge is to learn how all this information (which is stored, processed, and transmitted as bits) can be delivered as knowledge that is of use to humans.

Our ability to use technology to address this last barrier (the barrier to understanding) is sorely limited -- not because we lack technological know-how, but because we lack strategic know-how. Paul Strassman, in his book, Information Payoff, argued for the preeminence of strategy over organizational structure or technology, stating that technology and organization were enablers, but that strategic goal seeking was the key to preparing for--and surviving in--the future (Strassman, 1985). And strategic goal seeking has never been more crucial for libraries all over the world than it is today, because libraries have the potential for delivering knowledge, not just bitstreams. Libraries can focus on content as well as channels. That is what sets them apart.

2. THE ROLE OF LIBRARY IN A CHANGING SOCIETY

Of all the information delivery systems that exist in our society, none is so pivotal as the library. For the library can be, first and foremost, a people-oriented information delivery system. Libraries can deliver information across time (their archival function) and space (their lending and resource-sharing function), but they fail to serve if they do not focus on delivery. I believe libraries are strategic to the fabric of any society, and we are in danger of damaging that fabric, not because of technological change nor because of financial or political crises -- though these are forces to be reckoned with. I believe libraries are in jeopardy because of unsurpassed challenges to our leadership. And I am not alone in that view. Wilf Lancaster has said of librarians, "The survival of the library profession depends on its ability and willingness to change its emphasis and image" (Lancaster, 1982). Lewis Branscomb has stated: "If librarians are to play a creative role...they must again become teachers and innovators, and not custodians, lest the treasures in their custody are made obsolete by alternative services that fail to serve humanity as imaginatively and profoundly as they could" (Branscomb, 1981).

But the process of change is a difficult one. Pat Battin wrote, "One of the most powerful deterrents to change in conservative institutions...is the existence of strong autonomous vested interests and the fear of losing one's empire" (Battin, 1984). I argue that without change, the empire (if we must call it that) will certainly be lost. I have referred to this in previously published work as the "paradox of change" (Penniman, 1987). If we do nothing, we will change, but not as we wish, for we are in a changing environment and without adjustment our institutions degrade. To survive we must adapt. To state the paradox simply: To remain as we are -- hat is, vital -- we must change; if we don't change, we won't remain vital.

And what changes must we make? I am convinced that we must change the motivation of those who manage these information delivery systems we call libraries, and the problem of motivation rests with how our leaders of today and tomorrow will be measured. For what will they be held accountable? If they continue to be measured on the basis of the size of their collections and subscriptions, the number of staff reporting to them, the number of computers they control, or the number of databases they own, we will continue to have static, nonrespon-sive organizations that fail to serve their users as fully as they could. The leaders of these services will talk technology, but will be thinking about control of assets. These leaders will be skeptical of some of our latest information technology, because they have not, in the past, been rewarded for increased productivity--especially if it led to a decrease in their assets, against which their value has been judged. So I would argue that initially we must change the way we measure success for our libraries. With the correct measures, we will encourage library leaders to consider the drastic re-engineering of their enterprise that must occur and prepare them to rethink how their current dollars are spent.

Where will these new measures of performance come from that help to drive the change process? Who will give them to our library leaders? I believe the leaders of these services themselves must develop these new measures, and they must make a decision. They must choose a new philosophy of information service leadership.

The traditional view is that libraries are institutions providing service of immeasurable value. Most libraries function under this philosophy. Some management information systems do also. Fewer computer centers do, but many are still funded as if they believe this "immea-surable value" philosophy. No commercial information services operate under this philosophy -- for long. As the overhead costs of information services in all institutions come under the magnifying glass, this philosophy, I am convinced, will cease to be viable.

The alternative philosophy is that every information service or product has a measurable value. The value of a service may be its cost versus the cost of a competing service when the unit costs of both are made explicit. However value is computed, it needs to be made explicit, or the value will end up being realized too late as the lost opportunity cost once the service is eliminated or seriously curtailed.

This approach of measuring value (as well as cost) has serious implications for the infrastructure of a library. It moves the library and its services into the mainstream of the broader community in which it resides. It positions the library as a delivery mechanism rather than a warehouse, with an emphasis on output, not assets. It also implies that the mission and goals of the library should be aligned with the broader mission and goals of the institution in which it resides, and this is crucial. The library must become more tightly coupled in its planning and execution with the larger institutions it serves.

This approach consequently moves library leaders closer to key decision makers who understand this type of quantification, and closer to MIS and computer center managers who are more likely to use such quantitative approaches.

3. MODEL FOR CHANGE

These factors lead me to a model for change that incorporates two types of bridges between the present and the desired future (Penniman, 1987).

First is a retrospective bridge (call it feedback) that compares what we said we wanted with what we have accomplished thus far (that is, accountability or assessment). Second is a forward-acting bridge that is based on intervention -- i.e., making the future develop according to our wishes, not someone else's. What ties these two bridges (accountability and interven-tion) together is an analysis of our successes and failures and a sharing of our experience openly with one another. An article in the Journal of the American Society of Information Science (JASIS) contained the following paragraph written by two librarians:

It is not surprising, given what I have just said, that you would see some radical changes in information service delivery at AT&T Bell Labs, where I spent seven years before joining the Council. In 1985, the Library Network at AT&T developed a new approach for service delivery -- a physical facility called an information access station. The purpose of this venture was to learn about new approaches to delivering information services to an audience accus-tomed to equating level of service with size of physical facility. The access station provided a combination of physical, electronic, and human resources to our customers at a unit cost (and in a space) far less than previous traditional libraries. The design built upon ideas used in the banking industry, including: deliver basic service via electronics, go where the customer is, give a human interface where needed, and rely on networking for service support. We installed six such access stations and, just as important, when business conditions dictated, we removed access stations at far less cost than closing a traditional library.

The access station used only proven off-the-shelf technologies and drew upon resources already available elsewhere in the network. It was a means of moving service closer to the patron's workplace and giving rapid access to resources already available elsewhere.

The information access station provided the following functions, among others:

I'd like to turn now to a second example drawn from AT&T's Library Network. Just as we used the access station concept to extend the physical presence of our network without adding costly library facilities, we used electronic systems to extend the virtual presence of our network. AT&T had over 4,000 buildings in its domain. Less than 3 percent of these build-ings had populations of 500 people or more. We needed to deliver services to AT&T profes-sionals regardless of their location, and we certainly could not build libraries in all those buildings with more than 500 people. So we relied more and more on electronic interfaces for information searching, document ordering, and information delivery.

When I left AT&T, we had over 15,000 active online users who generated almost 30,000 sessions per month. We were adding over 50 new users per week and reaching internationally to AT&T locations throughout the world. We gave access to over 50 internally developed databases that provided document request and, in some cases, full text capability.

A second remote batch order entry system built around an electronic-mail facade provided users with access to our services via their own local machines. With this service, they could submit database searches, order in-house documents or external photocopies, request library books or purchase books, submit reference requests, and request log-in access to our real-time interactive database systems.

Another major change implemented at Bell Labs during my tenure involved our method of handling journal photocopying within the Library Network. Where we once relied upon the distributed and redundant collection of journals in the various branch libraries for photocopy requests, we found we could no longer afford the cost of this inefficient approach. Instead, we moved to a centralized document delivery service that improved delivery, reduced unit cost of photocopies, and systematized copyright conformance.

This change came about partially because a detailed cost analysis of various approaches demonstrated that the total cost, when fully allocated, of demand photocopies from a distri-buted collection on open shelves was more expensive. The creation of a centralized document delivery service was also consistent with our move to remote delivery of information services in general -- i.e., delivery directly to the user's workstation.

There are many other experimental systems being tested at the Labs, as well, that would provide rapid access to the published literature directly at the individual's workstation. These are being developed in conjunction with publishers, so all stakeholders are involved.

Perhaps the most significant experiment, however, that was under way at Bell Labora-tories at the time of my departure did not involve any technology at all. It was, instead, the development of "networks" of people crossing organization boundaries to reshape how work got done. This process of organizational restructuring has been studied in detail by Charan, who sees the emerging networks as mechanisms for affecting patterns of relationships and behavior -- in other words, empowering people to talk openly and candidly, to improve decision making, to build trust, and to evaluate problems and solutions from the viewpoint of the customer (Charan, 1991). It is too soon to know if that experiment at the Labs will be successful, but it is clear that such experiments are taking place in a wide variety of institutions and that what is at stake is the effectiveness of our institutions.

In libraries, too, we need to undertake similar experiments that challenge the traditional hierarchical structures of management. To do this we need to see the creation of "networks" (not technical, but organizational) that link researchers in library and information science with library leaders, and we need to see greater understanding between the two groups. Library leaders are cautious about change because they have been conditioned to avoid mistakes, while researchers display a curiously dispassionate view of their work. They are often great at analysis but fall short on accountability and intervention. Library managers, on the other hand, are oppressed by the qualitative type of accountability of the past, in which a single negative anecdote can stifle a career or limit a budget. Librarians could actually benefit from a closer alliance with researchers, allowing experimentation in their libraries on a continuing and highly visible level. Libraries need to be transformed into learning organizations in all senses of the word as viewed by their users and their funders.

I believe one way researchers can demonstrate a sense of accountability is to build an in-depth understanding of the full range of conditions necessary for successful implementation of their ideas. They must not only understand those conditions, but be willing to help create these conditions. Having a deep knowledge of technology or research methodology is not enough. Researchers must also have a deep knowledge of the total environment they are dealing with and the likely conditions that lead to failure or success in that environment.

If researchers really want to help library leaders achieve new vision for libraries, then researchers must help library leaders fit research into library-related strategic objectives. They must also be willing to come down to near-term practical problems of short-term benefit on occasion in order to buy time and credibility for grander schemes.

For years I have argued for system boundaries that recognized the viewpoint of the user, not just the systems designer (or the librarian, or the researcher, for that matter). I have also argued that the "system" boundary should encompass not only the search system and the document production or delivery system, but also the education system (for users, inter-mediaries, and designers), the bureaucratic system, and the economic system in which the technical systems reside (Penniman, 1991). I have said that we must

4. CONCLUSION

This paper has presented the case for change within libraries and emphasized the point that our technological environment, while an important factor, is not the only or most crucial factor for success. A full model for change must be forward-acting and must have a strong feedback mechanism that encourages libraries to become "learning organizations." Examples drawn from previous experience at AT&T Bell Laboratories reinforce this point and emphasize that networks of people working in new relationships outside of traditional organizational structures are necessary. Closer teamwork between researchers and managers is also called for, with each developing a deeper understanding of the environment of the other. It is especially important that both understand the complex and multifaceted environment in which systems evolve (including the non-technical bureaucratic and economic system components).

Finally, to repeat a point made early in this paper, library leaders must establish measures of success and be sure that those measures align with the mission and goals of the institutions that libraries will serve.
 

REFERENCES

Battin, Patricia, "The library: Center of the restructured university," College & Research Libraries (May 1984): 170.

Branscomb, Lewis, "The electronic library," Journal of Communication 31: 143-150 (Winter 1981).

Charan, Ram, "How networks reshape organizations -- For results," Harvard Business Review, pp. 104-115 (September-October 1991).

Hall, Lawrence, "Storehouses of wisdom," New Jersey Star-Ledger, 17 April 1991, p.19.

Lancaster, F. W. Lancaster. Libraries and Librarians in the Age of Electronics. Arlington, VA: Information Resource Press, 1982.

Lucier, R. E. & Dooley, J. F. , "Cosmology and the changing role of libraries: An analogy and reflections," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36 (1): 47 (January 1985).

Penniman, W. D., "Systems interfaces -- Revisited," in Design and Evaluation of Computer/Human Interfaces: Issues for Librarians and Information Scientists, Papers presented at the 1988 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 17-19 April 1988, ed. Martin A. Siegel. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, 1991. pp. 69-78.

Penniman, W. D., "Tomorrow's library today," Special Libraries,78: 195-205 (Summer 1987).

Strassman, Paul. Information Payoff: The Transformation of Work in the Electronic Age. New York, NY: Free Press,1985.