$node.contribution("Title")
$node.absurl
Starting Off on a Technicality
By Andrew K. Pace
American Libraries Columnist
andrew_pace@ncsu.edu
Head of Systems, North Carolina State University Libraries, Raleigh.
Column for�April�2004
Technically speaking, I am not just a technical person. Unlike some of my more technically minded colleagues, I do not think that technology alone can solve a library’s problems. But neither am I an “accidental”�systems librarian, as some who have these responsibilities thrust upon them have come to call themselves. My name is Andrew Pace and I am a systems librarian on purpose. On occasion, I will settle for�“systems guy,” so long as I do not forfeit my standing as a librarian.
Who is this guy?
Some of you might recognize my name from a column in Computers in Libraries. Others might read ALA’s Smart Libraries Newsletter�(formerly Library Systems Newsletter), for which I was a contributing editor from 2002 to 2004. I’ve also tried to add my voice to the profession through numerous speaking engagements; my book, The Ultimate Digital Library, published by ALA Editions in 2003; and most recently with the February 1, Library Journal cover story on the future of integrated library systems.
Although I started my professional career by earning my stripes with a major library automation vendor, I have spent the last five years at North Carolina State University libraries, the last two as head of systems. I am grateful to NCSU for remaining on the cutting edge of library technology and affording me the opportunity to follow the hottest trends and implement the latest technologies.
Regardless of technology, however, a good systems librarian needs grounding in libraries. While it’s almost too late to undo the damage done by “digital library” operations built completely independent of brick and mortar libraries, I think it is easier to see the failure in trying to build a bridge from digital libraries back to traditional ones. The bridges should have been built in the other direction. A sound understanding of library science, both technical and philosophical, ensures that technology in libraries is a tool, and not merely an end in itself. This is why I love being a library generalist and a technology generalist—as the saying goes, it is my goal to know less and less about more and more, until I know nothing about everything.
The generalist
If being a systems librarian affords the opportunity to be a library generalist, then being a department head raises generalization by an order of magnitude. One of the particular challenges in leading a systems department is developing both a thorough knowledge of the library field, and an ability to communicate the technological perspective to nontechnical staff. Systems librarians are often the only representatives with whom library software vendors have meaningful contact. If the systems librarian doesn’t have a firm grasp of the library’s needs, it might explain why vendors don’t always know what libraries want. It also shows why systems librarians play such pivotal roles in moving library automation forward.
Future legacies
My predecessor, David Dorman, leaves a big column space to fill in the pages of American Libraries. Like many of you I have been amazed by the breadth of his coverage in this magazine. His perspective will be missed, but I hope that I can do his legacy justice.
Given enough hours in the day, there’s nothing particularly hard about tracking technology. There are many resources available for discovering library initiatives, and some marketing departments still send out press releases if a new customer sneezes three times in a row.
I have found from my experience that readers (whether or not they consider themselves technical) basically want three things from technology writing: news that is synthesized without being watered down; writing that implies required action (or inaction) without being too opinionated; and coverage that lets different types of libraries reach their own conclusions about technology. That said, I think I can fairly state that there are some solid themes that will run throughout this column. I want to share those with you now.
Sheep in wolves’ clothing
If there’s a schtick that I pull out on occasion, it’s endeavoring to improve associations between libraries and their vendors. It is imperative that libraries and vendors grow from a relationship of codependence to one of codevelopment. Vendors are not intruders. They are not a necessary evil. They are part of our landscape, part of our lives, and part of our profession.
One aspect of working with vendors and understanding what motivates them might be described as entrepreneurial spirit. Generally, many librarians don’t have one, which is why they became librarians, a more altruistic pursuit. Some librarians do have it though, and a lot of them become vendors or wind up working for them. Finding the librarian within the entrepreneur, and vice versa, helps bring the two sides closer together.
A spirit of openness
One of the places where you can find entrepreneurial spirit in library technology is in the open source software (OSS) community. Would that open source software came with open source marketing, documentation, and help desks. They say that nine out of 10 restaurants fail—OSS projects should be so lucky. With so many of them out there, separating a clamor for attention from a real chance at success is a tricky business.
The other problem with reporting on open source is that it tends to be somewhat religious. Some advocates of OSS fail to meet an open source product that they do not blindly love. Opponents immediately overgeneralize that support will fail or that any good OSS will ultimately require commercialization for success. I believe that there is a middle ground, and that deciding about the use or implementation of OSS is not unlike deciding about and implementing proprietary software. Rapid development and proprietary software are not mutually exclusive concepts. Neither are OSS and fully supported software applications. Successful libraries will deploy a mixture of open source and proprietary technology solutions for many years to come.
Advocating standards to the library community is certainly preaching to the choir. But of course the problem with standards is that there are apparently so many to choose from. In fact, there are not that many; it’s just that we have elevated the term “standard” to include documented protocols and widely accepted use—neither of these practices is truly a standard. Nevertheless, standards development, much of it headed by NISO, is on the brink of a renaissance period. This is due not only to the hard work of NISO and its members, but also to the trends of library-software development.
Current trends in library software development favor interoperability over tight integration. Stand-alone modules to solve distinct workflow and public service problems are sprouting up all over the place: Electronic Resource Management (ERM) systems, institutional and digital repository software, portals, reference linking, and virtual reference . . . this list could go on. The problem is that interoperability, as it exists now, includes a lot of smoke and mirrors. Putting it bluntly, interoperability without standards is impossible.
I hope to make a comfortable home out of the pages of American Libraries,�and I am grateful for the opportunity to succeed David Dorman in this important role. While I don’t have all the answers, I have plenty of informed opinions (as well as some uninformed ones). In part, I will be relying on readers—librarians, administrators, paraprofessionals, vendors, and the rest—to both point out the obvious trends and expose the best-kept secrets of library technology. Above all, I want to make it fun. I’m looking forward to the challenges and the opportunities, and I hope all of you are too.