[439] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Future of Automation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Mon Jun 8 12:17:02 1992
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 10:41:30 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
3 Messages, 91 Lines
*-----
FROM: AXPBBGS --UICVMC
From: Bernie Sloan
Subject: Future of automation
A couple of responses to my "future of automation" posting have reminded
me of a semi-parallel in the automotive industry (there was mention of
"just in time" provision of information, a questioning of the wisdom
of maintaining a "warehouse of books" mentality, and discussion of the
need for a paradigm shift).
Toyota uses a "just in time" system for moving auto parts to its major
assembly plant in Japan, counting on large numbers of lesser companies
to deliver parts to the manufacturing plant just as they are needed.
Among other things, this cuts down on the substantial costs of maintain-
ing huge inventories in their own warehouses.
Of the world's automakers, Toyota would appear to be the one that is
leading the way towards a paradigm shift in that particular industry.
They appear to be enormously successful, while the automakers that
cling more to the "old ways" are faltering.
Could there be a lesson in this for our profession?
Bernie Sloan
*-----
From: tleonhardt@MADVAX.UOP.EDU
Subject: RE: Future of Automation
Automation seems here to stay. I suspect that automation will not be cut
but personnel will be harder than ever to replace. Although we tell
administrators that automation does not save staff or money, it is hard to
displace the notion that staff needs go down as libraries automate.
As an example here at UOP, when a university administrator, somewhat familiar
with automation and computers, heard that we were getting INNOPAC, he said that
we would be able to save a lot of staff time in the circulation because we
would not have to file cards any longer. I told him that although we would not
have to file, we would have to deal with automatically generated overdue
notices and that circulation was most certainly going to increase, perhaps
double. The burden on shelvers would increase dramatically.
Logical arguments do not necessarily win budget arguments, especially when
budgets are tight.
Computers do not ask for raises and do not have medical, dental, life, and
retirement insurance. Sure we pay maintenance but it is not the same.
Computers will stay, people will go.
Logic and being reasonable do not count.
Tom Leonhardt, University of the Pacific
*-----
From: MJENSEN@CHARLIE.USD.EDU (Mary Brandt Jensen)
Subject: future of automation
>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
Part of the problem is that many of us get one time money to
start them up but no extra money to pay continuing costs.
Yes a lot of us have to rob peter to pay paul. All the
libraries in the South Dakota Library Network are dealing
with a 28% increase in ongoing automation costs with at
most a 3% increase in funds. And in many places the increase
is coming out of the book budget because there isn't anywhere
else to get the money.
>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.
But most of us don't get new money to hire new staff either.
We have to reassign and retrain existing staff and usually
everyone has to take on an increased work load without additional
compensation.
>large sums of money for automation are often easier to come
>by than money for books or staff.
This isn't true for continuing funding of ongoing costs. It's
only true for new projects, major expansions and new services
if at all. Then most people have to absorb the expanded ongoing
costs with existing funds.
Mary Brandt Jensen University of South Dakota
Director of the Law Library School of Law
Associate Professor of Law 414 E. Clark St.
MJENSEN@CHARLIE.USD.EDU Vermillion, SD 57069-2390
(605) 677 6363 Fax (605) 677 5417
