[257] in Information Retrieval
Re: automated statistics and Other Offenses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jamess@MIT.EDU)
Wed Oct 5 14:37:39 1994
From: jamess@MIT.EDU
To: ps-lib@MIT.EDU, elibdev@MIT.EDU
Cc: gyoung@MIT.EDU, jklucker@MIT.EDU
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 1994 14:35:32 EDT
In the Barker Engineering Library, we have been having problems with the
LAN. Several times, we have contacted the Systems Office. John Saylor, in his
capacity as our technical consultant, was seeking to find out why (since the
Systems Office seemed loathe to do so). This is the reply he received:
> John [Saylor] --
> Please disable the statistics gathering on the CD-Barton Lans. CD-Barton
> and Geac statistics should be gathered by and through the Systems Office
> staff only as their support and maintenance is our responsiblity. If
> statistics are desired they should be requested through appropriate
> channels. Thanks.
> -- Grant Young, Systems Office
Is this part of Grant's new System's Office support plan? After multiple re-
quests, our technical specialist attempts to fix the problem and he's told he's
"not part of our group so hands off." What a stupid, childish attitude for the
group responsible for the information backbone of the library. Local needs
take precedence over channels. Or has the Systems Office forgotten that the
end goal is to serve the MIT community? If they want things to go through
channels then "the channels" should be a bit more responsive. If the Systems
Office is swamped and cannot meet Public Service needs, then it should welcome
qualified technical support. It should not be hasty to cut off qualified staff
from attempting to determine the problem which Grant is apparently uncapable of
resolving. What we have is a petty turf issue. Grant did not mention the con-
tacts John Saylor and other Librarians had had with the Systems Office.
Perhaps it would be easier to route all the complaints from our users to Jay's
or Greg's offices to receive the treatment that is needed. Are those the
proper channels he's referring to? Gathering statistics is neither technically
demanding or labor intensive. Why does the Systems Office need to be involved
IF THEY REFUSE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS? Then we'd have to justify why we
need to "impose" on their time to take statistics. An endless cycle of apathy.
The System's Office has a rather warped sense of their purpose. Instead of
helping the Libraries coordinate and provide access to information to our users
(which *is* incidentally our mission), they've tried to become technocrats of
library information. They won't maintain our PC's ("We're out of the PC busi-
ness"), they won't instruct how to use the software ("That's for MRL to do"),
they won't help with LAN problems unless pressed or it's convenient ("See your
LAN manager"), they are off in meetings, they refuse to mount software which
Public Service Librarians have requested because they didn't write it, they
refuse to let units gather statistics to see why their LAN is crashing yet pro-
vide no service, and require that all computer equipment requests go through
them. They call it "coordination", I call it petty tyranny.
I have letter after letter from student, faculty, and librarians who have used
my Firstsearch editor who are glad to have it available. It is a useful tool
for creating a bibliography from FirstSearch. We'd like to include it in the
OWL stock answers, but the Systems Office response is "We won't support it."
This was available almost since the inception of Firstsearch. The source, not
perfect, has been offered for review and improvement.
I have written a series of programs which would allow users to submit RSC, ILB,
and Suggested Purchases over Athena. The Systems Office response is "We won't
support it." Again, this has been available since May. The source and scripts
again have been freely offered for review and improvement.
What it comes down to is that the major obstacle to the DLI is the Systems
Office. "They can't support it, and it has to go through channels." It dumps
all of the problems to the Divisional Libraries and provides little support.
Rather than work as team players, they refuse to work with public units to
develop electronic tools and purposely impede self-maintenance. The integrity
of the Library System revolves about its ability work cohesively to serve the
needs of the clientele. It's odd that Systems continues to try to dictate
what those needs should be or establish electronic standards for Public Service
Librarians without consulting them.
In an exchange between Eric Celeste and Tom Owens regarding a public forum to
discuss using the World Wide Web as a resource:
Eric noted:
> I'd be interested in speaking to the benefits/drawbacks of quick and/or
> decentralized editorial responsibilities or the benefits/drawbacks of a
> clear and strong HTML style-guide for a web.
Tom responded:
> Since I've already assigned Carter the task of coming up with an HTML style
> guide and presenting this to NUT, I'd feel better if he addressed this.
It disturbed me then and it disturbs me now that Systems feels that it can
dictate what should be done without knowing what our users' OR *our* needs are.
Or in the case of WWW, what the potential of the system is. Was Rotch, Music
or Science consulted about style needs by Carter for this document? Excluding
Greg, of course, Tom considers himself the Systems Office.
When approached to mount my FirstSearch editor, Tom Owens response was that
it was unsupported. When asked what it would take to get support, even though
I've freely offered the source code, it came down to the fact that it was
not written by Systems. "If you wanted something like that, [the Librarians]
should have asked." Good Heavens, they should take the cotton out of their
ears! We've been asking, why aren't they listening? We need ILB forms sup-
port. We need RSC forms support. We need suggested purchase forms support.
Why do users need to come into the library to fill out a paper record? This
*is* MIT. It's hard to tell patrons, "Yes, well the Library Systems Office
refuses to support it." They can't continue to hide behind implementing OPACs.
At least the GEAC Advance will continue to make them useful for making backup
tapes.
When the Public and Technical Services issues are raised at Elibdev, they get
swept under the carpet by Tom Owens who says Systems will deal with them and
then never does. It should strike somebody that if it's being developed in
Public Services then it is a Public Services need. But let's not talk about
"real life libraries" when we talk about developing "electronic libraries and
services".
The Systems Office at MIT could use a dose of reality as opposed to the virtual
variety. A TQM survey of how other departments view them might be "enlighten-
ing". Every useful service developed so far has been developed or implemented
by IS--OWL, TULIP, Willow, Net-Entrez, etc. The few services Systems does
supply, they support poorly -- LANs and ... is there anything else? ... They
do GEAC backups ... now let me think. They don't do the PC thing anymore.
They don't do training--that's MRL donchya know. I'm drawing a blank.
However, Information Services DOES have fast, friendly, reliable service AND
the staff are topnotch programmers who have the Institute's interests at heart
instead of a tiny piece of turf. While the Library Systems Office is one of
the greatest stumbling blocks at the moment in developing a 21st century lib-
rary, at least Information Services will carry the Libraries forward.
My advice to Grant and Systems is the same I give my four-year-old, "If you
can't share your toys and play nicely with others, get out of the sandbox."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Mess, Presently: Pure and Applied Chemistry Librarian
Soon-To-Be: Asst. Systems Librarian, Univ. Minn.
World Wide Web: http://spider/
