8
should do so as complements to digital library services, or as solutions to ser- vice failings, not purely out of spite for an information industry that has tra- ditionally controlled technology solutions.
This book has not intended to place library vendors and dot-coms in the same category; in fact, it has intended to more closely ally the priorities and strategies of libraries and their vendors. Both would do well to pay more attention to their dot-com counterparts. While they share many attributes, the fixed nature of library automation vendors’ customer base should distin- guish them from their dot-com counterparts. As such, library vendors have a unique interest in the professional development, technological expertise, and philosophical considerations of a vocal customer base.There are several ways in which both sides can capitalize on the codependent nature of their relationship.
Library-vendor exchange programs are just one radical notion on this front. Many libraries would gladly send their professionals to library vendors in order to teach the latter a thing or two about how libraries want to do business.The librarians themselves would likely come away with fresh insight into the perspective of a fast-paced industry that ultimately aims to please its customers (or its stockholders, as the case may be). On the flip side, libraries might leverage the programming or product management skills of library vendor development staff in return for sending librarians into the field.These borrowed skills could either be used for programming that is unique to the library’s needs, or could involve modifications to software supplied by the vendor in question. The library gets unfettered access to professional pro- gramming and development skills, and the vendor gains insight into the needs of the library.
Library educators might consider a more systematic approach to prepar- ing students to enter careers in the library vendor field. Certain vendors might even consider subsidizing such educational efforts in return for con- tractual work obligations by students upon graduation—sort of a library ven- dor ROTC program. In this way, library vendors gain access to the all-impor- tant formative stages of library education, and the library profession sends its own into the vendor field with the profession’s interests at heart.
Less radical approaches, like formal library-vendor partnerships, codevel- opment of library service products, and professional organization membership opportunities can also do their part to bring the library and vendor commu- nities closer together. No longer two separate camps, they have the potential to become two sides of the same coin, leveraged to take library automation forward in this century.
VALLEYS, PLATEAUS, AND MOUNTAINS
Nevertheless, there are those who might argue that libraries will not be able to climb their way out of the valley of tradition, culture, and status quo. Still others might argue (among them even library vendors themselves) that library automation has reached a plateau of functionality, leaving both vendors and libraries wondering what else there is to do in the industry—both in devel- oping and delivering information. In fact, this notion poses a danger to library interests because it is only a matter of time before library automation vendors seek ways off their plateau. So far, vendors have merged with other vendors, gone out of business entirely, or expanded into new areas like network ser- vices or nonlibrary automation projects. None of these is necessarily in the best interest of libraries.This book suggests several areas into which libraries and vendors could expand their market cooperatively. Doing so has the potential to create revenue for library vendors, while continuing to ensure the mutually beneficial relationships with libraries that have existed for decades.
Both parties need to foster the relationship if it is to continue in the future.
Whether in the valley, or on the plateau, libraries and vendors must meet together to face the next mountain. Perhaps the information tools and com- modities offered by Internet businesses are the next challenge for both.
When these challenges are not faced in concert, both camps face the dan- ger of technology becoming an end in and of itself, rather than a means to an end.Without clearly defined challenges and concerns, libraries and vendors will both bury themselves in the minutia of technological concerns that no longer solve known problems. Paying attention to the business models of new Internet companies and information brokers, however, may shed new light on online services, desired functionality, and new frontiers of information delivery.
Despite partnership efforts, libraries will want to keep a collective eye on the plateau of library automation.As fewer but larger companies compete for a shrinking market space of new-name sales, the library vendor marketplace, especially for ILS companies, is bound to get interesting in the next decade.
Some vendors will continue to concentrate on providing technology to cus- tomers whom they entrust with the responsibility for content. Others will seek the full integration between catalog and content, wedding two compo- nents that some libraries will continually strive to keep separated, for better or worse.This strategy certainly poses concerns for libraries that have already recognized the ineffective, and even dangerous, nature of products like Questia that force users into a tightly controlled world of information that excludes all other sources. Nevertheless, libraries need to find better ways to
integrate online discovery with online delivery, or the disintermediated model will win the day, as users (and libraries) choose unmediated conve- nience over guided chaos.
Libraries should also be wary of the new library automation entrepreneur who attempts to pick up the slack from existing library vendors; this business model is especially prevalent in the open source community. Stopgap mea- sures and quick fixes endanger libraries by returning to the days of modular systems that the next generation of librarians will struggle to integrate with existing systems and business models. Moreover, egocentric and single-devel- oper products are dangerous bets when a library has limited technical support.
Some library vendors, especially ILS companies, are already helping on this front by marketing some of these new technologies themselves, rather than attempting to build their own integrated versions of the same.This attempt at system integration is often an afterthought for the new library service entre- preneur, rather than a goal at the outset.
Finally, other ILS vendors will likely seek to repurpose existing software modules for new customers just waking up to the value of well-organized information. Digital information management systems—the catalogs of the twenty-first century—will bring new customers and new revenue to ILS ven- dors seeking to subsidize the relatively low prices that they charge to libraries.
The danger for libraries here is marginalization by the very industry that it created and nurtured over the last four decades.An early and active role in this development strategy will place libraries at the forefront of library IT devel- opment.
TIMING, PACE, AND BUSINESS MODEL PLANNING
Libraries can continue to learn from their corporate counterparts when it comes to creating, delivering, and supporting digital library services. Three simple strategies will help libraries compete with and emulate successful busi- ness practices.
First, libraries must learn to look for expertise in the right places, and hire IT professionals with the same celerity with which they can acquire jobs in the private sector.There is a joke in library information technology that says the way to pay IT professionals what you can afford is to require an M.L.S.
degree. Based in fact, this humorous truism not only shows that libraries need more IT expertise in their ranks, but also suggests a willingness among librar- ians to gain expertise that would be better compensated in the private sector.
The sooner libraries and information professionals work to shrink the dis- tinctions between private and librarian sector information jobs, the better off everyone in the industry will be. As for the issue of speed in hiring, IT pro- fessionals, especially programmers, remain in heavy demand, despite the demise of several Internet ventures.When libraries have the chance to acquire them, they should take it; when library schools have the opportunity to train them for the information profession, they should jump at it.
Second, libraries need to move forward in embracing new technologies.
They have already evolved from negative reactions to cautious approaches and then to reluctant adoption. In an information economy with corporate play- ers, libraries must seek to embrace technological advances only slightly behind the curve, at worst, and well ahead of it, at best. Moreover, libraries should continue to emulate––and when necessary, attack––Internet business models that challenge effective library services that already exist. Petty jeal- ousies and concerns over being misunderstood will not woo back customers.
Creating viable and effective services that stand as alternatives to Internet counterparts keeps patrons and wins new ones.
Third, libraries must adapt to business models that foster the creation, maintenance, and product relevance of digital services. Effective evaluation of services, in conjunction with analysis of the value balance equation (see chap- ter 4), will help libraries develop strategic plans, form marketing strategies, and allow libraries to compete with (and defeat) Internet business alternatives.
DISTINGUISHING LIBRARIES IN THE INFORMATION INDUSTRY The best part of all this is that not only can libraries accomplish these goals without sacrificing their professional and ethical integrity, they can do so while vindicating themselves at the same time. Libraries have the distinct advantage of ultimately being able to ignore the bottom line. Library service models that leverage the best of what is available on the Internet will fill the vacuum that failed Internet business models (based on those library service models) create when they go belly-up. Contentville and netLibrary are just two major examples of business models that could not make it; others are sure to follow. It is right and good that libraries continue to create and maintain the valuable business models that traditional businesses themselves cannot afford.When it comes to repackaging the materials that libraries provide bet- ter, it is the strong opinion of this author that most of these ventures will fail.
It will be surprising if Questia is still around by the time this book is pub-
lished. It is not that information wants to be free; librarians want information to be valuable, and this is where libraries come in, by adding the value of sub- ject expertise, collection, and organization. Search, retrieval, delivery, and per- sonalization are still distinct challenges, but ones that libraries can easily over- come by leveraging the expertise of corporate entities. Those same entities will likely never have the value sets—both professional value and ethical value—that libraries bring to the table.
But before librarians dance on the fresh graves of failed Internet business models, they must ensure that their own services include the applicable bells and whistles that will lure back, or capture for the first time, the online cus- tomer base that is now accustomed to a higher level of Internet service.
Moreover, libraries should not take a reactive stance in capitalizing on the demise of Internet businesses, but should be positing themselves as viable alternatives in the present.When the rest fail, libraries will be there to pick up the ball.
Not only will libraries be there, they will stand ready with a suite of ben- efits that users of corporate sector services never cared about—preservation, standards, privacy, human contact, and value. Libraries will reintermediate themselves into information brokering (both automated and not) with the added values that some patrons expect from libraries and that others have for- gotten ever existed. One can hope that libraries’ traditional vendors will be there with them, helping them, offering the needed technology, distinct from content, and delivering content that is free from restrictive licensing and monopolistic prices. Even strange bedfellows can dream.
Note
1. Richard De Gennaro,“The Development and Administration of Automated Systems in Academic Libraries,”Journal of Library Automation 1, no. 1 (1968): 80.
137
T
his book mentions several dot-coms, library vendors, and organizations with a stake in the library industry.This appendix is an effort to describe the general business and focus of each of these organizations.Without excep- tion, the text of the descriptions is taken from the websites of these organi- zations.Very little editing has been applied to this text, so the reader should take superlatives, promises, and tales of greatness with a large grain of salt.ADOBE
Founded in 1982, Adobe Systems, Inc., builds award-winning software solu- tions for network publishing, including web, print, video, wireless, and broad- band applications. Its graphic design, imaging, dynamic media, and authoring tools enable customers to create, publish, and deliver visually rich content for various types of media. Adobe is the second largest PC software company in the United States, with annual revenues exceeding $1.2 billion. It employs over 2,800 employees worldwide.
ASK JEEVES
Ask Jeeves, Inc., is a leading provider of natural language, question-answering, and search technologies for consumers and companies. The company offers these technologies through two business units:Web Properties, a set of online media properties and search services; and Jeeves Solutions, an enterprise soft-