College and Research Libraries BARBARA EVANS MARKUSON Cooperation and Library Network Development Networks function as change agents for libraries because they provide three critical services-research and development, capital ac£tuisition, and technol- ogy transfer mechanisms. Areas in which network participation has an impact on the academic library include the management of change, economic and attitudinal change, and cost accountability. Because of their early successes, networks have given rise to increased expectations for solutions to many critical library problems and for the equally rapid development of a national library network. wHEN THE NEW JOURNAL College & Re- search Libraries was issued in December 1939, a new era and new horizons for academic libraries, based on cooperation, improved bib- liographic control, technology, and legisla- tion, seemed imminent. Forty years have passed. We still seek im- proved technology. We still propose legisla- tion. We still fund cooperative projects at a level that would have disgraced the board of a backward eighteenth-century poor-relief soci- ety. As for bibliographic control, we still hope that someone will invent a bibliographic Cuisinart that will automatically chop, mash, puree, and blend national standard biblio- graphic records into an inexpensive and tasty dish seasoned to the local palate. Having achieved at least a national, standard, machine-readable bibliographic record, after enormous expenditure of effort, local catalogers reverse the effort by working their exquisite local petit point, having refined bibliographic embroidery to a high art form. In many of our libraries we still treat users with benign neglect, as we concentrate on amassing collections accessible by methods with which Mr. Cutter would be thoroughly familiar. Nevertheless, there are glimpses of a new horizon. If we subscribe to Ivan Illich' s tenets, Barbara Evans Markuson is executive director, Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority, Indianapolis. our salvation may rest in our failure to get exclusive rights as purveyors of information. When physicists, engineers, mathemati- cians, programmers , and other strange folk invaded our field after World War II, we couldn't have them arrested for practicing without a license. After setting up camp, they made forays into the bibliographic jungle. Then, after having surveyed our manual con- trol mechanisms, our massive collections, and our primitive file access, they called us dinosaurs doomed to extinction. The dinosaurs continued, with ponderous movements, to graze the ancient feeding grounds , so the interlopers decamped and in- vented what is now called the information in- dustry. Finally , the dinosaurs, nibbling through the midden, found such food for thought as data processing, information as a national resource, work flow analysis, cost effectiveness, and user service on demand. It was not easy to adjust to this strange diet; and, unfortunately, the inter- lopers decamped so hastily that they failed to leave the formula for changing dinosaurs into ecologically efficient beasts. When Fred Kilgour hit on a way to pry enough money loose from academic library budgets to form a large-scale cooperative, de- cently funded and technically oriented, it was a historic moment in American librarianship. I am convinced that we now have at least part of the formula for change. I 125 126 I College & Research Libraries • March 1979 Expanding on this theme, the following sec- tions review networks as change agents and coping with change, and the final section scans the new academic library horizon, taking brief notice of a few cloudy issues. NETWORKS AS CHANGE AGENTS The rapid development of cooperative computer-based library networks, in which academic libraries played a seminal role, is a phenomenon ye t to be adequately investi- gated. Whether networks will become perma- nent components of the library environment or whether they are an expedient and ad hoc structure is uncertain. Despite these un- knowns, a present attempt to rationalize net- work development is both a matter of im- mediate concern and of permanent profes- sional interest. To this end, I hypothesize that networks provide three critical services: research and development, capital acquisition, and technology transfer mechanisms. The penna- nence of networks will largely depend on their ability to provide these services until more efficient technology change agents are pro- vided. Research and Development Any institution's survival depends upon its response to social, economic, and technical change in its environment. Since World War II, libraries, as well as other institutions, have attempted to accommodate to almost continu- ous change. The effort to adjust to technical change in the library field has been difficult due to the nature of technical change and the inadequate library mechanisms for technical planning, assessment, and transfer. Technological developments spawn new developments like yeast spores, multiplying rapidly , mindlessly , and endlessly. Banks turned to computers, and we now have auto- mated tellers; transistors were invented, and now even schoolchildren have their own per- sonal calculators. Soon videotape recorders will be as prevalent as television sets. Unfor- tunately, the library profession's mechanisms for assessing these technologies have not, until recently, advanced much beyond those used by Melvil Dewey and his peers , who sat around and swapped tales of staff resistance to, and the relative efficiencies of, the Hammond, Sun, Calligraph, and other variants of the typewriting machine. Beyond our grudging annual widow's mite to the American Library Association and simi- lar groups, we support no permanent organi- zations to assume responsibility for library re- search and development; we have no library think tanks gathering data and formulating ·long-range strategies; we have no laboratories testing new equipment and alerting us to its potential impact, cost, and benefits. None of this would matter if each library's budget provided for technological assessment and planning. Not only is this far from true, but the limited research and development funding available to the library field is sporadic, limited to areas of concern to funding agencies, geared to short-term projects, and inadequate. Moreover, the political realities in the distribution of funds generally result in small-scale efforts, since not only the politi- cians but the librarians as well complain if large grants are given to only a few. An additional problem arises because li- brary budgeting mechanisms rarely allow for- ward funding, permit massive equipment and system replacement, provide for amortization of long-range development efforts, or allow the establishment of" risk" capital or depreci- ation funds. Inevitably, long-range advance planning for continuous absorption of technological change is virtually nonexistent in libraries. This lack of technical research and de- velopment was not so important when the technology was simpler. If one bought an in- efficient copier or microfilm reader that was condemned after consumer testing, the im- pact was localized, and the defect was rem- edied with a reasonable outlay of cash. At- tempts to use computer technology revealed, for the first time and on a large scale, lack of appropriate agencies and mechanisms for mas- sive technological retooling of library opera- tions. The manpower and funding required if literally hundreds of libraries were to convert to computer-based operations made evident not only serious flaws in the library economy, but also the essential lack of structure in the library community. Furthermore , the forces that made com- puter technology of particular relevance to li- braries continued. It was unthinkable that a field besieged by an information explosion, t more sophisticated user demands, and cyclic financial retrenchment would be unable to use a machine that processed, retrieved, and transmitted data rapidly; offered potential for increased staff productivity; and expanded the range of user services. Thus, while it is generally assumed that the raison d'etre for networks stems largely from our tradition of interlibrary cooperation, an equally compelling argument can be made that networks are largely a response to our lack of techniques to deal with innovation and change when these involve complex technologies. Although many networks have done little in the way of significant research and develop- ment, although many do not yet have research projects as budgeted line items, and although networks themselves are still largely depen- dent upon uncertain funding sources to support research and development, a potential exists for a permanent research and development program. This year, for example, OCLC, Inc., an- nounced the formation of a research depart- ment within its research and development di- vision. Projects include a study of machine/ machine interface, the efficient response time for different terminal operations, the potential of the home television set as a remote catalog access device, and the problems of subject access to very large files o( catalog records. By assessing a tiny research and develop- ment "tax" on each operation, networks could aggregate funds to support permanent re- search and development projects. This inter- nal funding of research to supplement our lim- ited external funding could increase our ability to use new technology efficiently and to de- velop new techniques for information han- dling. Capital Acquisition The library literature generally concen- trates on the operational aspects of library technology; rarely are we given insight into how a given library acquired the capital for the new technology. Computer technology has, perhaps , been the most capital intensive of any introduced on the library scene. In addition , computer systems tend to be upgraded on a regular basis, requiring more or less continu- ous funding for modification and maintenance. It is important that libraries understand the Cooperation I' 127 role networks play in transmission of technol- ogy because of their ability to assist in the acquisition of capital required for change. A recent OCLC financial statement indi- cates that over $13,000,000 in land, buildings, computers, and other equipment is owned by OCLC, and almost .$10,000,000 is owed in current and long-term debt for computer equipment and other resources. Assets as of September 30, 1978, totaled $27,785,070, corporate equity was slightly over $9,000,000, and liabilities were about $18,500,500. Over and above these central costs, there are some two thousand terminals purchased by library networks or individual libraries rep- resenting, ignoring depreciation, an aggregate investment of about $7,400,000. A conserva- tive estimate of the current budget for the OCLC, Inc., and its associated networks would be in the neighborhood of $30,000,000-roughly about $23,000 per li- brary. Melvin Day, formerly deputy director of the National Library of Medicine (NLM), recently noted similar features of the NLM on-line network. More than two thousand terminals in one thousand health science libraries use the system for more than a million literature searches annually. This allows the large capital investment that NLM has made to be amor- tized over a high volume of use . Commercial information retrieval services, such as SDC and Lockheed, follow a similar strategy. It seems reasonably clear that only large firms, the federal government, a few large states, and large library networks will be able to undertake the capital investment needed to support complex, large-scale on-line net- works and to provide the continuing research and development needed to mount new ser- vices. In the library community the network provides the structure required to concentrate needed capital. Networks can also employ var- ious entrepreneurial strategies, such as in- debtedness, that are unavailable to many li- braries. It is important that network organiza- tions have a legal basis which allows maximum flexibility in funding strategies and that mem- ber libraries honor contractual commitments which the network has incurred on their be- half. Technology Transfer Networks are an efficient mechanism for 128 I College & Research Libraries • March 1979 comprehensive, rapid, and widespread technology transfer at a reasonable cost. Net- works facilitate this transfer by centralized contracting with · commercial firms, by cen- tralized acquisition of equipment, by contract- ing for development of specialized services, ' and by contracting with other networks. Networks can also effect rapid change by centralizing a specialist staff whose skills are made available to many libraries. As new technologies require increasingly skilled and specialized staff, this feature of networks will become critical to continued development, especially as salaries of specialists increase. Job descriptions that appear in network news- letters, such as the one published by BAL- LOTS (now RLIN, the Research Libraries In- formation Network), give insight into the range of skills required to develop and main- tain large-scale on-line systems. The economics of this centralization of staff is made evident by an analysis of the OCLC system. A library using OCLC supports about one-fifth of an OCLC staff member's time a year and obtains skills, such as electrical engi- neering, cost accounting, programming, com- puter operation, telecommunication plan- ning, and systems analysis. Few libraries can acquire even some of these specialists on their local staffs. Networks also facilitate rapid change by role specialization. Networks such as RLIN, Wash- ington Library Network, and OCLC concen- trate their efforts on the development, instal- lation, and management of central computer- based systems and services. Affiliated net- works such as CLASS, AMIGOS, SOLINET, INCOLSA, and MINITEX concentrate their skills on marketing, user education and train- ing, and assisting with local installation of net- work services. Although this development in role spe- cialization was largely unplanned, it has proved to be an effective and efficient means of rapid technology transfer, has allowed an equitable access to network services on a nationwide basis, and yet has permitted some differentiation in services and governance as the needs vary in different parts of the coun- try. THE ACADEMIC LIBRARY IN THE NETWORK ENVIRONMENT No one has yet detailed the total impact that network participation may have on the academic library. Areas of special importance are the management of change, economic change, attitudinal change, and cost accounta- bility. Management of Change For many academic libraries, participating in network services and connecting to on-line cataloging may well be the first major change in library operations. Many library adminis- trators are not . experienced in the manage- ment of ehange. It seems inevitable, however, that, once a library embarks on an automation program through network participation, change becomes a permanent way of life. There are macro changes.(for example, the impending introduction by OCLC, Inc., of automated interlibrary· loan) and micro changes (for example, the change in a field of the MARC serials format). In addition, there are local changes that result fr