[426] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Future of Automation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Louise Heusinkveld - 516-282-3648)
Fri Jun 5 10:41:28 1992
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 09:35:45 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
From: Louise Heusinkveld - 516-282-3648 <HEUSINKVELD%BNLCL1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
The question of automation vs materials budgets is an
interesting one, but I wonder how many libraries actually
have to "rob Peter to pay Paul" in order to automate?
I have seen no formal surveys, but one hears all the time
about special sums of money as one-time allocations for
automation projects. Automation projects often seem to
have a life of their own, and once they get started, they
can eat up staff time voraciously, often resulting in a
need to hire more and more people just to continue feeding
the monster all the data it needs in order to produce all
those pretty reports.
I have the feeling that the real squeeze comes in pulling
staff away from traditional tasks and into automation
related ones, and when downsizing comes along, does the
"system" get scrapped, or do levels of service get lowered?
The comment was made that it is very difficult to put the
genie back into the bottle. It is also a fact of life that
large sums of money for automation are often easier to come
by than money for books or staff.
I think sometimes we become so enamoured of all the possible
ways of getting reports from a system that we forget that
perhaps many of the reports that used to have meaning no
longer do, and we should be changing our expectations when
we automate our libraries. How many "electronic card
catalogues" are there, which have nowhere near the capabilities
we see in databases in other areas, but which we proudly
unveil to our poor unsuspecting public, who soon ask "where
is the card catalogue?" Sanjay Chadha has it right when he
calls for a "library information system", instead of just
another OPAC. I'll add a plea to make it simple and
straightforward rather than emulate the multi-screen,
unforgiving "management information systems" we seem to be
seeing more and more of.
This looks as though I am one of those Luddites who is against
library automation -- I'm not, far from it in fact. I just
think we should all slow down and ask ourselves what the
benefits are from some of the things we are asking our
automation projects to do for us, and decide what we really
need, and try to get rid of ideas which are no longer relevant.
Louise Heusinkveld
Database Specialist
Technical Information Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973
HEUSINKVELD@BNLCL1
516 282-3648
