+ Page 1 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review Volume 1, Number 2 (1990) ISSN 1048-6542 Editor-In-Chief: Charles W. Bailey, Jr. University of Houston Associate Editor: Mike Ridley, McMaster University Editorial Board: Walt Crawford, Research Libraries Group Nancy Evans, Library and Information Technology Association David R. McDonald, Tufts University R. Bruce Miller, University of California, San Diego Paul Evan Peters, Coalition for Networked Information Peter Stone, University of Sussex Published three times a year (Winter, Summer, and Fall) by the University Libraries, University of Houston. Technical support is provided by the Information Technology Division, University of Houston. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEADLINE for the next issue is September 3, 1990. Editor's Address: Charles W. Bailey, Jr. University Libraries University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-2091 (713) 749-4241 LIB3@UHUPVM1 Articles are stored as files at LISTSERV@UHUPVM1. To retrieve a file, send the e-mail message given after the article abstract to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1. The file will be sent to your account. + Page 2 + CONTENTS COMMUNICATIONS Zen and the Art of CD-ROM Network License Negotiation Thomas C. Wilson (pp. 4-14) Based on negotiations with a number of CD-ROM database vendors and producers, Wilson categorizes the use restrictions and pricing schemes commonly found in network licenses for these products. To retrieve this file: GET WILSON PRV1N2 Symposium on Staffing Issues and Public-Access Computer Systems Edited by Mike Ridley and Charles W. Bailey, Jr. (pp. 15-49) Carolyn Gray, David Lewis, Howard Pasternak, Cynthia Rhine, and Elizabeth Wood answer five questions about staff support for public-access computer systems. Their diverse perspectives illuminate this increasingly critical problem. To retrieve this file: GET RIDLEY PRV1N2 A CD-ROM LAN Utilizing the CBIS CD Connection System Steve Smith (pp. 50-61) Smith describes the experiences of staff at the the Rasmuson Library of the University of the Alaska at Fairbanks with the CBIS CD Connection CD-ROM network system. To retrieve this file: GET SMITH PRV1N2 Z39.50: Where is It and Who Cares? Mark Hinnebusch (pp. 62-66) Z39.50 is an important OSI protocol that will permit library systems to communicate with each other for retrieval purposes. Hinnebusch provides a brief status report on Z39.50 implementation activities in libraries. To retrieve this file: GET HINNEBUS PRV1N2 + Page 3 + DEPARTMENTS Public-Access Provocations: An Informal Column "Help!" Walt Crawford (pp. 67-70) Crawford address the issue of what libraries should do to help patrons with using public-access computer systems. To retrieve this file: GET CRAWFORD PRV1N2 Recursive Reviews "Public-Access Computer Systems and the Internet" Martin Halbert (pp. 71-80) Halbert discusses eight articles and books that will help you understand the Internet and its implications for libraries. To retrieve this file: GET HALBERT PRV1N2 EndNote at Dartmouth: A Double Review Gregory A. Finnegan and Katharina E. Klemperer (pp. 81-90) Finnegan and Klemperer evaluate the EndNote software and describe its use at Dartmouth College, where it provides freshmen and other users with a way to manage bibliographic citations on their Macintosh computers. To retrieve this file: GET FINNEGAN PRV1N2 Editorial "Libraries with Glass Walls" Charles W. Bailey, Jr. (pp. 91-93) Bailey examines Internet access to library systems. To retrieve this file: GET BAILEY PRV1N2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computerized bulletin board/conference systems, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their collection at no cost. This message must appear on copied material. All commercial use requires permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 91 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 1, no. 2 (1990): 91-93. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Editorial ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Libraries with Glass Walls" By Charles W. Bailey, Jr. As an increasing number of academic libraries provide Internet access to their online catalogs and other databases, the nature of library services is changing. Dial-access to library systems was primarily a convenience to local faculty, staff, and students. Typically, no effort to publicize dial-access service was made beyond the library's primary clientele. If geographically remote users could obtain dial-access instructions, they were generally welcome to access the catalog, but long distance costs limited this type of use. On the other hand, Internet links provide remote users with significantly increased access to library systems. Costs are determined by the user's institution. Some users are charged- back for computer time, others are not. From the Internet user's point of view, access barriers certainly exist; however, these barriers mainly relate to having adequate instructions and appropriate terminal emulation software. Various projects, such as Dr. Art St. George's list of Internet library systems, are addressing the documentation issue. From the library perspective, troubling issues arise about Internet access. What is the library's obligation to provide technical support to remote users? How does Internet use impact on the library's limited system resources, which are needed to support the library's primary clientele? How does Internet access affect system security? What effect does Internet access have on license agreements for locally mounted databases? Accustomed to the free flow of information on Internet, faculty members and academic administrators are likely to have little patience for foot dragging by librarians when it comes to network access to library systems. Computer center directors may also find resistance from librarians puzzling and unacceptable. On the other hand, a proactive, positive response by librarians to Internet access is likely to be warmly welcomed by the scholarly community. + Page 92 + Computer networks won't go away, and scholars will become increasingly dependent upon their services. As computer network interconnections and capabilities increase, the "global village" may become a much more immediate day-to-day reality in libraries. Government-funded networks for businesses and general citizens may also develop over time, and these networks may be linked to scholarly networks. Both of these potential developments could greatly increase the size and heterogeneity of the network user population. The long-term issue is not whether library systems will be available on computer networks like Internet. They are likely to be linked to these networks. The real questions involve deeper issues about the nature of library services in an era of computer networking. Libraries have developed an intricate web of interlibrary loan agreements in the context of national and international copyright law. Prior to the current era of increased electronic access to information, scholars' inability to easily identify needed materials has shielded the interlibrary loan system from the full brunt of potential demand. Now, users can employ Internet to search remote online catalogs as easily as they can search their local catalogs, and, in the future, similar access may be available on NREN and other networks. The interlibrary loan system has been recently stressed by libraries' declining purchasing power combined with the advent of public access to CD- ROM databases, locally mounted databases, and bibliographic utility databases (e.g., EPIC). How will it react to the increased demands created by network access? It is possible to imagine a future interlibrary loan environment where increased loan restrictions will significantly limit the flow of information. It is also possible to imagine an environment where end-users will electronically place their own interlibrary loan requests at libraries world-wide, indifferent to the source of the needed item. In between these two poles is the large grey area where the probable future of remote access to library collections lies. + Page 93 + Fantasies of "virtual libraries," where users transparently access needed information regardless of location, depend on no- cost, unrestricted access to electronic information. In the real world, ownership and access are interwoven, library materials are usually in print form, and libraries are not usually high funding priorities for their parent institutions. If electronic information is obtained from commercial sources, libraries may need to restrict remote access to it. Ironically, print information in remote libraries may be more accessible than electronic information. Jane D. Segal, User Education Coordinator of Rice University's Fondren Library, coined the phrase "libraries with glass walls" to describe the phenomenon where users can rapidly retrieve information about needed materials in remote libraries, but they cannot access these materials easily or quickly. For a variety of reasons, the interlibrary loan system cannot provide access to all of the materials identified by a remote library's online catalog and, since it is bound by physical processing and delivery constraints, the interlibrary loan system is much slower than electronic access to the online catalog. Until we grapple with the difficult issues associated with remote access to library systems via Internet and other computer networks, there are going to be an increasing number of hand and nose prints on the glass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic journal. It is sent to participants of the Public-Access Computer Systems Forum, a computer conference on BITNET. To join the PACS Forum, send an electronic mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First_Name Last_Name. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. This article is copyright (C) 1990 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computerized bulletin board/conference systems, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their collection at no cost. This message must appear on copied material. All commercial use requires permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 67 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 1, no. 2 (1990): 67-70. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Public-Access Provocations: An Informal Column ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Help!" By Walt Crawford Your patron access systems probably have help screens available at the touch of a key. There are dozens--maybe even hundreds--of carefully-worded context-sensitive messages to help the frustrated patron. Some systems even incorporate the patron's problematic command into the help text. How often do those help screens get used? If you're typical, not very often. From what I've heard informally, systems with logging facilities show that help functions are so rarely used that, if they were indexes, they would be prime candidates for removal from the system. Not only in patron access systems, but in most interactive software, even the most superbly-crafted help facilities go unused--even while they could solve most problems that users face. Help in Other Contexts The problem seems to be general, although I've never seen a good explanation as to why this is so. Think about your own experiences--say, with microcomputer software. Quite a few contemporary programs have superb online help, in some cases even first-rate tutorials that can be reached from within the program. I'm writing this using Microsoft Word, which has both. Quattro Pro has context-sensitive help that is not only well-written but includes a coherent hypertext system to expand on selected topics. Even inexpensive programs such as PC-File and PC Tools Deluxe have excellent context-sensitive help facilities, and in each case the way to get help is clearly labeled. + Page 68 + But I'm no different than the rest of you; I fail to go for help when I'm a little unclear on a concept. That was brought home when I was giving a workshop on PC Tools Deluxe, and one of the people asked about the four choices for type of backup in PC- Backup: while we all understood "Full" and "Archive" (incremental), what were "Full continual" and "Continual"? I mumbled for a minute and was about to open the manual, when another person said "Why not ask for help?" A press of F1, and I had a concise answer to that precise question. People tend not to ask for help when it would be most convenient, but wait until they are in serious trouble. That's true for more than computers, to be sure--how many people get seriously lost when driving in strange territory before they'll stop and ask for directions? But at least in those cases, they have the feeble excuse that they don't want to look ignorant. Why are we so afraid to "look ignorant" to a computer? It's certainly stupider than we are, and that help was put there for a reason. (Are we really afraid to admit ignorance, even to ourselves? Perhaps. Do you know how all the functions on your VCR work--and, if the manufacturer had tucked a $10 bill somewhere in the manual, would you have it in your wallet by now?) If Not Help, Then What? What provisions can you make to ease people over the rough spots in direct-access systems? While first-rate online help will not get used nearly as often as it should be, that's no reason to ignore it, any more than a library should ignore the needs of ten percent of its users. And maybe someday we'll lose enough of our pride so that we start using help more readily. It's possible that labeled HELP keys get used more than unlabeled F1 or help achieved through a command, but I'd be surprised if they solved the problem entirely. Some patron-access systems make a point of offering help when something goes wrong, or if the same incorrect or ineffective action occurs two or three times in a row. In the latter case, a system might even pop up a help screen unasked. These options can be useful--although some study of patron reactions might be worthwhile. + Page 69 + What else can you do? While good bibliographic instruction classes in college can be enormously valuable for other reasons, very few college or university libraries can possibly train all their students and faculty in using direct access systems--and, of course, universal formal training is impossible in public libraries. Manuals? Forget it. Yes, you should have them--for staff use, so that the staff understands the system properly. You might even have a copy available for the incredibly small fraction of users who would have any interest in reading them. Most people who spend good money for software won't take the time to read the manuals; why should library users spend time with manuals? The real resource for patron access problems should be the librarians, but that's problematic as well. Some libraries do make a point of having librarians cruising the terminal areas for the first few weeks after a new system is introduced, looking for people who may need assistance. That's a nice touch; where I've seen it done, it has been good public relations and quite useful in improving initial acceptance. But how many libraries can afford to have professionals wandering around the terminals and PCs permanently--and how will that help the fraction of troubled users who really don't want to admit that they have problems? In any case, librarians on the alert for patrons who need help can't do much for patrons dialing up from home or with the increasing use of terminal clusters throughout the stacks and in locations all around campus. Cheat Sheets Once again, I don't have any pat answers. The closest I can come is the cheat sheet or reference card: a card or single (possibly folded) sheet that offers a tight summary of commands, with just enough explanation to get people going. The cheat sheet should also emphasize that online help is always available and show how to get it. These inexpensively-produced items should be readily available, in stacks so that people feel free to take them away. (If they cost more than a nickel each to produce, you may not be doing them correctly.) + Page 70 + Cheat sheets don't solve all the problems, by any means. Flip charts at terminal stations can be useful, although they can also get in the way and take up usually-inadequate working space. A combination of help screens, cheat sheets, and moderately alert librarians is probably the best solution you can provide, although it will always be incomplete. About the Author Walt Crawford The Research Libraries Group, Inc. 1200 Villa Street Mountain View, CA 94041-1100 BR.WCC@RLG ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic journal. It is sent to participants of the Public-Access Computer Systems Forum, a computer conference on BITNET. To join the PACS Forum, send an electronic mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First_Name Last_Name. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. This article is copyright (C) 1990 by Walt Crawford. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computerized bulletin board/conference systems, individual scholars, and libraries. This message must appear on copied material. All commercial use requires permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 81 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finnegan, Gregory A., and Katharina E. Klemperer. "EndNote at Dartmouth: A Double Review." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 1, no. 2 (1990): 81-90. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. Why EndNote? (Gregory A. Finnegan) EndNote is a Macintosh program designed to insert citations into a word-processing document, format these citations correctly according to whatever standard (or user-customized) stylesheet is selected, and build a bibliography for the document from the cited references according to the stylesheet selected. EndNote was selected for the freshman software package at Dartmouth because it was easy to use, compatible with our OPAC, and inexpensive. For all of these reasons, it is suitable as a low- end "DFM" ("Download-File-Manage") program for Dartmouth undergraduate students. For a campus that attempts to innovate in delivering computing services and electronic information to students, faculty, and administrators, EndNote allows us to respond to Timothy Weiskel's challenge to libraries to do what none has done: to make their most important intellectual resource--their catalogs--available as a DFM resource. [1] At Dartmouth, the first five freshman classes in the Macintosh era all had 85% of their members purchase Macintosh computers. At the beginning of the school year, over 70% of this year's freshmen had purchased Macintoshes. Adoption of the Macintosh and its software continues a 25-year emphasis at Dartmouth on computing as a means to an end--greater and easier student productivity--rather than as an end in itself. Computing power must be accessible to all Dartmouth students; the ease of use and the short learning curve of the Macintosh are major factors in its being adopted here. There are some 6,000 Macs on the campus network, which also provides access to the library's OPAC. [2,3] EndNote was adopted as a campus standard application both because it is useful and because it is easy to use. Indeed, EndNote is easy to use, but, unless it is used under MultiFinder, it involves a certain amount of 'ping-pong' back and forth between EndNote and the word processing package. Both a full and a desk accessory version of End-Note are needed to make use of the package. + Page 82 + What EndNote Does Using either EndNote or the desk accessory software, the user creates a "library" of citations. Then, while in the word processor (WORD 4.0, MacWrite, WriteNow, and WordPerfect are all supported), a "library" is opened via the desk-accessory version of EndNote and references are selected by copying and pasting. Pasting at the desired point in the paper inserts a citation marker. Exiting the word processor and entering the full version of EndNote allows the user to open the "library," select the word processing document that uses the citations, choose a stylesheet, and format the document accordingly. Re-entering the word processing program, the user can view and edit the document, which now includes correctly formatted references. This sequence is necessary because EndNote always works from the viewpoint of the citations. The word processing document that contains citation markers is incomplete until a style sheet is chosen and the paper is formatted accordingly. EndNote allows easy re- formatting of the same document according to different stylesheets. It never overwrites a document. Instead, it always creates a new version, which can be named whatever one wants (the default name is the existing filename suffixed with the style chosen). Because building a bibliography from the cited references doesn't happen until the formatting step, only one "library" of references can be used. Otherwise, the desired record won't be there or, equally important, it won't have the internal number used by EndNote to link citations to records. In practice, this isn't a major problem. Records from one "library" are easily and quickly imported and exported to and from other "libraries." One can keep libraries on given topics but combine them when writing a paper that contains citations for several topics. What EndNote Won't Do When we adopted EndNote at Dartmouth, we discovered that many library users, including (or especially!) librarians, have a lifetime of bibliographic fantasies that await easy computer fulfillment. And not all the desired capabilities are best handled (or handled at all) by EndNote. EndNote was the first really accessible DFM package most people had encountered. (A pocket of Pro-Cite users exists around and about our bio-medical library, but the complexity and cost of that program had deterred many potential users.) The flood of "will it do . . ." questions we heard made us realize that DFM software is needed, but it is so new to so many that users can have unrealistic expectations. + Page 83 + EndNote is a citation manager, not a personal online catalog. Its focus is on inserting citations into written documents. Bibliographies exist as adjuncts to papers; to get one by itself requires work-arounds. The easiest work-around is to select all records in a "library" and use the "Copy Formatted. . ." command to place the whole bibliography onto the Clipboard, from there it can be pasted into a word processing document. EndNote finds records extremely quickly, even in large "libraries," but isn't meant to be a catalog. (Comparative tests of three DFM programs on a 2964-citation, 803 KB database showed EndNote capable of finding records in less than 2 seconds, versus 160 seconds for Pro-Cite. [4]) Bibliographies can be sorted by author, title and year. There is an add-on, extra-cost module called EndLink that formats downloaded searches from the major bibliographic databases (e.g., DIALOG, BRS, and MEDLINE) into EndNote, but there is as yet no support for downloading MARC records. The limitations of EndNote, such as only supporting 15 "reference types," are really only limitations from the point of view of a "scholar's workstation." Few, if any, undergraduates will need to work with more than 15 types of references in one project. As librarians, we'd be happy if they could recognize fifteen types! Similarly, the fact that the companion EndLink module is an extra-cost add-on (even though it merges seamlessly into EndNote) and the fact that it is projected by Niles to remain an add-on in future EndNote releases is not an issue for undergraduates. They aren't end-users of bibliographic utilities, and any databases that Dartmouth mounts locally as part of its OPAC will have the catalog's "Display EndNote" feature, which is described later. Because EndNote files can be exported to Pro-Cite (and vice- versa), the transition from the low-end EndNote program to the more powerful Pro-Cite program is easy one, when this transition is appropriate. We see the two major Mac citation management programs as complementing each other: Pro-Cite for "power users" who have a need for its capabilities and the time to invest in mastering it and EndNote for users who need an entry-level program. Unfortunately, both Niles and PBS see each other as direct competitors, and Niles talks of adding features that will possibly create an upward spiral of new features and increased program complexity. + Page 84 + Why EndNote is a Good Thing EndNote is properly praised as being an exemplary Macintosh application; anyone familiar with a standard Mac application can easily and quickly pick up EndNote. [5,6] As a bonus, the documentation is unusually well-written and easy to use. (This is in contrast to Pro-Cite.) As an application, EndNote will free students from keying citations more than once or, when OPAC searches are downloaded, at all. It will also allow them to re- format references painlessly for all the standard style sheets. Who Uses Endnote? Why is undergraduate use of EndNote still limited at Dartmouth? There are several factors of varying importance that explain this. We're just beginning the third term of the first year of EndNote use. The program was distributed to all freshmen, but it wasn't automatically distributed to anyone else. EndNote is available at a deep discount, but it has to be individually purchased. All students must write papers, but upper-division students are the ones who are most likely to write major research papers. It's from graduating seniors that we get panicked style- sheet and citation questions. Seniors haven't automatically received, or even heard of, EndNote. EndNote instruction sessions are given to any class whose professor requests them, but they are targeted at freshman seminars. Most important, faculty have learned of EndNote chiefly from the library's newsletter and/or the computer center's newsletter, but students don't receive the library newsletter and they must ask for a subscription to the computer center newsletter. So, although the program is widely available, the vast majority of EndNote users (i.e., freshmen) are the least sophisticated group of potential users in terms of writing skills, library use, and Macintosh use. This last point is important. An easy journey is still a journey with a beginning step. We tried to build in instruction about EndNote, the OPAC, and the college's e-mail system into the beginning-of-the-year "Mac survival workshops" for freshmen. The sessions were not as well attended as sessions for setting up and running the Mac and for using the WORD program. This was partially a result of scheduling and publicity problems, but it was mostly the result of student overload. We tried to give new students too much instruction too fast. + Page 85 + Also, the value of a DFM package like EndNote is most apparent to a student who is aware of the range of bibliographic works to be used and cited. When even an Ivy League faculty can validly complain that freshmen literally can't read a citation and can't differentiate an article title from a journal title, it's unreasonable to expect such students to leap into using EndNote or any other DFM package. And even the easy and short Mac/EndNote learning curve is a learning curve that has costs and benefits. A faculty member who promoted EndNote in a freshman seminar reported that students didn't use the program because the effort to create "libraries" (citation files) and to key in entries was greater than the payoff, especially when most students felt that they would never write another paper on that subject and would be making one-time use of the citations. This response contrasted with the students' reaction to the same assignment requesting that papers be "handed in" by e-mail; they all did it. Someone writing a senior thesis or even a major paper with lots of sources would feel differently about the costs and benefits of EndNote. We started at the bottom with freshman, but we hope to see greater use over time. Science graduate students are beginning to use End Note. Graduate students have more sophistication about sources, use more citations in their papers, and save citation files for future use. EndNote can only process what it's given, which means that manual inspection and some cleaning-up are necessary when records are downloaded. (See the example in Part II.) Our BRS/Search OPAC has a database that was built from OCLC and RLIN tapes, with records that were created at Dartmouth, and from OCLC retrospective conversion tapes. This has resulted in some punctuation inconsistencies in the records. For example, an occasional citation will double the colon between place and publisher. Resolving this problem is a trivial concern for a large project, and it is certainly less work than manually creating citations and bibliographies. But, for a 5 or 10 citation freshman paper, it adds a relatively large step to the process of creating a bibliography. + Page 86 + To sum up, Dartmouth has found EndNote to be fully capable of doing what we want: helping to shift student energy from the mechanics of citation and bibliography construction to the substance of writing research papers. The limitations we've encountered are not grounded in EndNote itself. Instead, they are a reflection of the problem of introducing yet another piece of software (and one of a new sort) into a complex and time- strapped academic community. (Dartmouth has 4 ten-week terms per year and the pace is not relaxed!) The word processor bundled with EndNote for freshmen is WORD 4.0, which has a much more limited footnote and bibliographic capacity than EndNote. EndNote is better than WORD and it is better, at least at the undergraduate level, than other DFM applications. But it isn't effortless and it does have to be promoted and supported by library and computer center staff. II. How EndNote? (Katharina E. Klemperer) One of the more useful features of EndNote is its ability to import formatted references from other databases. By storing output from search sessions on disk as text files and using an ancillary program called EndLink, users can import citations from a number of commercial online databases. EndLink is simply a separate file that is kept in the same folder as your EndNote program. When you try to import a file by choosing the "EndLink" format, the EndLink program automatically parses the text file that you saved and converts it into EndNote citations in your EndNote reference library. Just as simple to use, and cheaper, is EndNote's built-in import feature, which recognizes text files that have been formatted using one of two conventional formats: Unix Refer (or BibIX) format, and Pro-Cite format. What this means is that you can import into EndNote any citation collections that have been created using the UNIX reference database "Refer" (or BibIX) or the Macintosh version of Pro-Cite. This also means that you can import references from any database program that is capable of producing Refer or Pro-Cite formatted files. If you have control over the displays produced by your online catalog or your locally-mounted bibliographic databases, then you can create files that are easily imported into EndNote. + Page 87 + At the Dartmouth College Library, it was possible to do this, because we have written our own user interface our online catalog and, therefore, we can program displays to our own specifications. The Dartmouth Online Catalog includes the usual files of monographic, serial, and on-order records as well as DARTMED, a subset of the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE database. Citations from all these files are candidates for import into EndNote. Dartmouth elected to use the Refer citation format rather than the Pro-Cite format because it was easier to generate Refer citations and they were more legible on the screen. In a Refer- formatted citation, each field is prefaced with a two-character label, which identifies the kind of data that follows. These codes all begin with a percent sign (%). For example, the author code is %A, the title code is %T, and the journal-name code is %J. The codes are all listed in the Endnote Manual. A "normal" medium-length display from the Dartmouth Online Catalog looks like this: Author: Magasi, L. P. Title: Acid rain national early warning system : manual on plot establishment and monitoring / L.P. Magasi. Imprint: Ottawa : Canadian Forestry Service, Government of Canada, 1988. Series: Information report (Canadian Forestry Service), DPC-X-25. Location: Bus-Engr TD/196/A25/M18/1988. If the online catalog user types DISPLAY ENDNOTE, the following display will appear: %A Magasi, L. P. %T Acid rain national early warning system : manual on plot establishment and monitoring / %C Ottawa : %D 1988 %I Canadian Forestry Service, Government of Canada, %S Information report (Canadian Forestry Service), DPC-X-25. Now, if the user is using a Macintosh terminal emulation program, he or she can use the mouse to "select" the EndNote-formatted display on the screen and save it to disk. The user then opens an EndNote Reference Library and chooses to import the file in Refer format. EndNote translates the Refer format into its own internal format and adds the reference (or references, if the user has saved a number of them) to the current EndNote Reference Library. + Page 88 + The user may now format the citation into whatever footnote or endnote style is desired. The above citation, formatted in "Nature" style, will look like this: 1. Magasi, L.P. Acid rain national early warning system : manual on plot establishment and monitoring / (Canadian Forestry Service, Government of Canada,, Ottawa :, 1988). Electronic distribution of The Public-Access Computer Systems Review doesn't show off all the typefaces that are available on the Macintosh (in this case, the title should be italicized), but the layout is evident. Also evident are some of the problems of downloading from an online catalog into a reference manager. Nearly all of these problems involve ISBD punctuation. What was designed to improve the beauty of a catalog card doesn't enhance a footnote. Some of these quirks can be corrected by adjusting the EndNote style specifications. For example, the double comma following the publisher is caused by a comma embedded in the data, which is followed by a comma inserted by EndNote. If we tell EndNote not to add a comma following the publisher, then this problem is solved. Removing data that came originally from the online catalog record, such as the slash following the title or the colon following the place of publication, can only be accomplished by actually editing the EndNote citation. The ability to download from the online catalog into EndNote has been received warmly, if not with wild enthusiasm, on the Dartmouth campus. The feature has been used most frequently by bibliographers preparing lists of recent publications and by medical researchers preparing subject bibliographies. With a little more exposure we feel that faculty and even students will begin to use this feature regularly. Notes 1. Timothy Weiskel, "The Electronic Library and the Challenge of Information Planning," Academe 75, no. 4 (1989): 8-12. 2. Gregory A. Finnegan, "Wiring Information to a Campus: A Port to Every Pillow," Online 14, no. 2 (1990): 37-40. 3. Katharina Klemperer, "New Dimensions for the Online Catalog: The Dartmouth College Library Experience," Information Technology and Libraries 8, no. 2 (1989): 138-145. + Page 89 + 4. Glenn D. Rosen, "What a Beautiful Cite: Reference Manager, Pro-Cite, EndNote Rated," The Active Window: BCS Mac Magazine 5, no. 12 (1988): 22, 24-26. 5. Ibid. 6. Franklin Tessler, "EndNote 1.0," Macworld 6, no. 2 (1989): 261. About the Authors: Gregory A. Finnegan Humanities and Social Sciences Reference-Bibliographer and Adjunct Associate Professor of Anthropology 104 Baker Library Dartmouth College Hanover, NH 03755 greg.finnegan@dartmouth.edu 603-646-2868 Katharina E. Klemperer Director of Library Automation Dartmouth College Library Hanover, NH 03755 kathy.klemperer@dartmouth.edu 603-646-2574 + Page 90 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic journal. It is sent to participants of the Public-Access Computer Systems Forum, a computer conference on BITNET. To join the PACS Forum, send an electronic mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First_Name Last_Name. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. This article is copyright (C) 1990 by Gregory A. Finnegan and Katharina E. Klemperer. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computerized bulletin board/conference systems, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their collections at no cost. This message must appear on copied material. All commercial use requires permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 71 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 1, no. 2 (1990): 71-80. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Recursive Reviews ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Public-Access Computer Systems and the Internet" by Martin Halbert Recursive Reviews is a new column that will identify and briefly describe articles that deal with public-access computer systems (PACS) and related topics in both library and computer science literature. The "recursive" in the name of the column emphasizes the idea that the discussion of information technology in libraries changes the underlying precepts of the discussion. The dialogue concerning uses of library technology redefines itself in this way, and can therefore be seen as recursive. Enough introduction, let's go on to the reviews. All followers of the PACS-L forum are aware by now that a great many library catalog systems are accessible via the Internet. The availability of these resources raises a great many questions and possibilities in the library and network user communities. What can be accomplished with this new communications channel? Exactly what is the Internet? What is its extent, and how does it differ from other computer networks? The articles and books reviewed in this column will be of use to anyone having questions about library systems and the Internet, from those unfamiliar with networking technology to those very conversant with it. + Page 72 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Engle, Mary. "Library Systems on the Internet." DLA Bulletin 9, no. 2 (Fall 1989): 1, 3-4. (ISSN 0272-037X) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Engle's article "Library Systems on the Internet" is a good basic introduction to the recent phenomena of PACS on the Internet. She concisely places the phenomena in the context of advances in library information technology, and she mentions some of the more notable Internet resource experiments that university libraries are undertaking. Basically, libraries have discovered that they can make their catalogs available over the existing Internet computer network, and some libraries are now making many other types of databases and services available. For example, Engle describes how patrons on the MELVYL system can now directly access the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries (CARL) collection of library systems. Plans are for the MELVYL catalog to provide access to the RLIN and OCLC bibliographic utilities. Other libraries are mounting periodical indexes. Engle briefly mentions the main problems associated with Internet access to a library's catalog or other resources: incompatibilities between systems accessed via the network, variations in systems' user interfaces and data structures, and increased demands by patrons resulting from the new services. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larsen, Ronald L. "The Colibratory: The Network as Testbed for a Distributed Electronic Library." Academic Computing 4, no. 5 (February 1990): 22-23, 35-37. (ISSN 0892-4694) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Larsen speculates in his article "The Colibratory: The Network as Testbed for a Distributed Electronic Library" on the possibilities of experimenting with new library related services on the Internet. He first recounts the history of the national research network from its beginning as the Defense Department's ARPANET in 1969 to the legislation now in progress for the creation of a National Research and Education Network (NREN) for the 1990s. Larsen then outlines EDUCOM president Kenneth King's vision of a world scholarly community that uses the network to communicate electronically and to access collaborative databases via a standardized, intuitive electronic interface. This standard interface would most likely use a network query protocol (a specified format for relaying information) such as NISO Z39.50 to access the many library online public access catalogs and other databases that would be made available (for a criticism of Z39.50 in this role, see Schoffstall's article below, which maintains that Z39.50 requires significant overhaul before it will be useable). + Page 73+ Library OPACS are just one of the collaborative information utilities that Larsen envisions as being central to scholarly work of the nineties. Federally produced full-text serials such as the Congressional Record, statistical data like the national census, and other depository information are logical resources for the NREN, since they are public information already. This kind of information can be provided free or for minimal fees, but what about commercially produced databases? Larsen maintains that the real benefit of the research network vision is in making resources available at little or no direct cost to the user, as books are made available in libraries. This requirement is what has made the realization of an electronic network library so difficult in Larsen's view, and restricted actual experiments to "a small number of pilot projects." Another significant barrier to users wishing to use the network as a means of accessing information resources is the esoteric nature of today's Internet. Fundamental facts about the network, such as its organization or available information services, are unavailable or hard to find (see the reviews of Comer and Quarterman for the best two tools in this area). Knowledge about how to use the Internet has always been an arcane lore, and network access must become more friendly and understandable before it can be used as a major channel of communication. Despite these barriers to use, Larsen maintains that the information community must not hesitate to experiment with the Internet as an enabling technological infrastructure. He summarizes: "The concept of a colibratory treats the Internet as a prime environment for collaborative experimentation on high performance distributed information services involving network developers, information resource providers, and network-based consumers." + Page 74 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kibbey, Mark, and Nancy H. Evans. "The Network is the Library." EDUCOM Review 24, no.3 (Fall 1989): 15-20. (ISSN 1045-9146) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Kibbey and Nancy Evans have a vision of the future very similar to Larsen's, but focus more on the details of implementation in "The Network is the Library." The frustrations of incompatible systems have undoubtedly been encountered by everyone reading this column. Without standard information formats, retrieval methods, and hardware platforms there can be no economies of scale or common user proficiency in using information systems. Incompatibility of software and hardware is one of the major problems that plague all people who use computer systems, from basic tasks like word processing to the most complex programming. Many libraries are now struggling with the problems of idiosyncratic CD-ROM databases which all have different technical requirements and search interfaces. Kibbey and Evans identify the standards issues that will need to be addressed to avoid similar incompatibility problems when developing information resources on the Internet, echoing many of Larsen's points like the importance of the Z39.50 protocol. They also discuss the importance of document format standards for bibliographic control and indexing. This is an essential point for the future. We must begin to settle on document formats today for the full text databases that will be built in the future. Formats like the Standardized General Markup Language (SGML) which specify bibliographic information such as author and title should be favored over pure display formats like Postscript, which simply contain page layout formatting. This distinction is important because without labeling bibliographic elements within the text the retrospective process of reformatting an electronic document for a database becomes much more difficult. Kibbey and Evans go on to describe Project Mercury, a prototype system that demonstrates all the strengths of the electronic library based on networking standards. Mercury is a full-text indexed electronic library of journal articles, reports, and other current technical literature on artificial intelligence. The project was jointly formed by Carnegie-Mellon University and OCLC to study the possibilities of the new technology. The document format that they used was a proprietary format developed by DEC (also involved in the project) based on the principles emerging from the still-incomplete Office Document Architecture (ODA). ODA is an attempt at achieving the best of both worlds, including both bibliographic element specification like SGML and page layout like Postscript. + Page 75 + Kibbey and Evans conclude, like Larsen, by saying that parties with a "stake in the next generation of academic information services," most particularly librarians, need to aggressively experiment with the new technology and expand their concept of publishing beyond the traditional print view. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lynch, Clifford A. "Linking Library Automation Systems in the Internet: Functional Requirements, Planning, and Policy Issues." Library Hi Tech 7, no.4 (1989): 7-18. (ISSN 0737-8831) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Lynch's article could serve as any library administrator's guide to implementation issues when considering involvement with PACS on the Internet. In "Linking Library Automation Systems in the Internet: Functional Requirements, Planning, and Policy Issues" he thoroughly analyzes the practical policy decisions and problems that come up when library systems are accessed over typical network setups. Basic elements such as the operating system one is using on the library system and the types of terminals that one decides to support have significant impacts on how well a system can be used on the network. Probably the central realization that Lynch offers is that one should study the nitty gritty functional details before getting involved in the network, not after. Ask yourself questions like: Is my system capacity really sufficient to support an indefinite number of users coming in over the network? If I want the system resources prioritized, is my system capable of this? How good is the terminal support on my system? Can it handle a reasonable subset of the constellation of different terminal types out there? Are my security and authentication measures up to keeping out network intrusions? Until one has good answers to all of Lynch's questions, one should stay away from the Internet. Lynch concludes with a cogent question about integrated library system vendors. Will these vendors develop complex Internet application features when a relatively small part of their client base is heavily involved with the network? If the vendors do not pursue this technology, will research libraries who wish to move ahead into the networked arena be forced once again into the expensive route of in-house application development? Have you reached the stage where you are tired of being confused by all the unfamiliar jargon and cryptic acronyms that come up when discussing the Internet? Are you interested in finding out the exact extent of this amorphous creeping electronic vine? Then read on, the next two books are for you. + Page 76 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Comer, Douglas. Internetworking with TCP/IP: Principles, Protocols, and Architecture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988. (ISBN 0-13-470154-2) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Comer's book "Internetworking with TCP/IP: Principles, Protocols, and Architecture" is the basic text for anyone seeking to understand the Internet. TCP/IP stands for "Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol." TCP/IP is the fundamental protocol set on which the Internet is built. DARPA converted its ARPANET to this set of protocols between 1980 and 1983, and, in a far-sighted move, funded the implementation of TCP/IP in the UNIX environment, the premiere university computer science operating system. In coordination with the National Science Foundation's new NSFNET and other major government agency networks, the modern day TCP/IP Internet, or just Internet, came into being. The evolution of the Internet in the last decade has paralleled the general explosion in computer technologies. It was no small feat. In one essentially seamless network, the vast archipelagos of government and research computers are linked, from the largest supercomputers to microcomputers that can sit on our desks. The three core services that make Internet so useful are electronic mail, remote login, and file transfer. Followers of the PACS-L electronic forum are no doubt aware of the advantages of the first two, and may have used FTP (File Transfer Protocol) facilities to retrieve files from the data archives of Internet sites. The Internet is not yet a commercial product, although some portion of its services will probably become commercial at some future date. Until that time, the Internet will remain an arena for research projects of all kinds (for future technical developments of the Internet, see Mills, et al. below), and it should be investigated by librarians. Comer's book can walk you through all the specifics of the network. + Page 77 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quarterman, John S. The Matrix: Computer Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide. Bedford, MA: Digital Press, 1990. (ISBN 1-55558-033-5) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Once you understand the principles behind the Internet, you may want to study the physical layout of the system, and for that you need John Quarterman's book "The Matrix: Computer Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide." Quarterman shows how the many world networks interconnect, where their main sites are, and the overall geographic layout of the systems. If I have been overly biased toward the Internet in this column, I apologize. There are many other networks that exist in various degrees of interconnection with Internet, notably BITNET (Because It's Time Network, an academic network similar to Internet, but with lower transmission speeds and no remote login facilities) and UUCP (the name comes from the network's main protocol, Unix to Unix Copy Program, which allows almost anyone with a Unix system and a phone to join the network). There are literally hundreds of networks connecting computer sites worldwide, and if you want to get an overview of them, you have to study Quarterman's book at length (or be a networking guru yourself). The title Quarterman chose for his book is interesting, and seems to be a case of non-fiction following fiction. Popular science fiction books such as William Gibson's "Neuromancer" were calling the world network system "The Matrix" in the early eighties. It is also interesting to note that Autodesk has chosen to try to implement the interface to the Matrix that Gibson described using the same name, "Cyberspace". How far behind science fiction is today's technology anyway? + Page 78 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mills, David L., Paul Schragger, and Michael Davis. "Internet Architecture Workshop: Future of the Internet System Architecture and TCP/IP Protocols." Computer Communication Review 20, no.1 (January 1990): 6-17. (ISSN 0146-4833) ---------------------------------------------------------------- We may not have caught up with science fiction, but the Internet is certainly progressing technologically, as described in "Internet Architecture Workshop: Future of the Internet System Architecture and TCP/IP Protocols." There are many exciting new developments coming to the Internet within the time frame of NREN, such as gigabit speeds and millions of additional users. The report of the workshop shows that the people who maintain and develop the Internet are very concerned about the problems involved in keeping the network in good working order as it changes and expands dramatically. David Mills, Chair of the Internet Architecture Task Force, posed a serious question in his session on "Navigation Aids for the Future Internet," saying "We occasionally see cases of Internet routing bobbles, meltdowns and black holes, even with only 700 nets and uncoordinated back door paths which invite sinister routing loops. Are the Internet addressing and routing algorithms adequate for very large networks with millions of subscribers?" (p. 6) Some workshop participants questioned the need for a gigabit network (meaning a speed increase of roughly 100 times for the Internet), but were reminded that many scientists needed the high speeds for data transfer. For example, during future space missions researchers hope to engage in global collaboration on the returned data, which will consist of multiple megabyte-size files. At the same time, researchers are concerned that the development of the technical infrastructure of the network not drain critical funding for basic science. Sound like a familiar library dilemma of trading off automation budgets against other library budget items? There are actually many issues of common interest between Internet workers and librarians. We are both faced with the same dilemma of being pushed toward charging for some services in the future where we did not charge for any in the past. The networking people don't have any magic answers either, but it's instructive to see the same dilemma from another perspective. + Page 79 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schoffstall, Martin L., and Wengyik Yeong. "A Critique of Z39.50 Based on Implementation Experience." Computer Communication Review 20, no.2 (April 1990): 22-29. (ISSN 0146-4833) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, Martin Schoffstall and Wengyik Yeong give us the benefit of their practical experience in working with the Z39.50 standard in their testbed project on NYSERNet in conjunction with OCLC. The purpose of the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol is standardization of bibliographic queries across networks. Unless a standard of this kind can be agreed upon, we will be facing a chaos of different access methods. Schoffstall and Yeong identify many shortcomings in the current Z39.50, but their points are called into question by their own comments. They complain that the drafters of Z39.50 did not understand the importance of maintaining full compatibility with pre-existing protocols such as the Remote Operations Service (ROS) standard. On the next page they admit that they don't understand the distinctions of the MARC format and actually propose discarding it in favor of a yet-to-be-developed "systematic cataloging method free of redundant specification" (p. 24). Hopefully, the catalogers out there will give these authors the benefit of the developmental history of MARC. They helpfully include their network IDs in their paper: schoff@psi.com and yeongw@nisc.nyser.net The articles reviewed here are a small subset of the literature on the Internet, but hopefully they will benefit you in studying the issues involved in implementing library services over the network. + Page 80 + About the Author Martin Halbert is Automation and Reference Librarian at the Fondren Library of Rice University. He has worked as a corporate librarian and consultant for the IBM corporation. His phone number is (713) 527-8101, extension 2577 and his e-mail address is HALBERT@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic journal. It is sent to participants of the Public-Access Computer Systems Forum, a computer conference on BITNET. To join the PACS Forum, send an electronic mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First_Name Last_Name. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. This article is copyright (C) 1990 by Martin Halbert. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computerized bulletin board/conference systems, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their collections at no cost. This message must appear on copied material. All commercial use requires permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 62 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hinnebusch, Mark. "Z39.50: Where is It and Who Cares?" The Public Access Computer Systems Review 1, no. 2 (1990): 62-66. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction The Z39.50 Information Retrieval Service Definition and Protocol Specifications for Library Applications, published by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) in 1988, defines a mechanism to be used by a computer system to search for and retrieve information from another computer system, not necessarily made by the same vendor. While the standard is geared to the manipulation of bibliographic data, it is general enough to support a large range of information types. The standard was written to be an application level protocol of the ISO Open Systems Interconnection model (OSI) and as such appeared to be inextricably intertwined with the evolution of the entire OSI suite of protocols. Recently, there has been interest in building OSI applications on top of the well-established Department of Defense TCP/IP protocols running in the Internet. In addition, at least two major vendors (DEC and IBM) have released full OSI protocol stack support. These two trends have combined to make Z39.50 implementation feasible in the immediate future. Z39.50 Implementation Meeting On March 12, 1990, representatives of fourteen institutions that were either implementing or on the verge of implementing Z39.50 met at the Library of Congress to discuss the various questions that needed to be resolved to ensure that their implementations would "interoperate." Interoperability is an OSI term that is stronger than intercommunication or interconnectability. Interoperability assures that both ends of the connection operate in a well-defined manner that ensures that the purpose of the connection, i.e., the transmission of a search request and the results of the search, will be performed as expected. Interconnection only ensures that they will talk at some lower layer in the protocol suite, perhaps only at the lowest level, the physical level. + Page 63 + While one might think that by following the directions in the Z39.50 standard interoperability would be ensured, this is not the case. OSI standards are formed in a political environment, and it is often impossible to gain consensus. In these situations, the standard will usually offer options. Two systems choosing different options may not be able to interoperate even though both are correct and conform to the standard. This situation exists at all layers of the OSI protocol suite. Therefore, interoperability requires agreement on the choices of options. These agreements are often known as Profiles or Stable Implementation Agreements. The situation with Z39.50 is further complicated by the existence of the Internet, which uses the TCP/IP protocol. Use of the Internet as the underlying protocol stack is attractive for two reasons. The Internet is currently seen as a free service to the end user. While the government is talking privatization, this has not yet happened. The Internet and its underlying protocols are mature. There are thousands of nodes running a large number of products. OSI, on the other hand, is in its infancy in the U.S., although it has been used extensively in Europe. The institutional representatives who met in Washington were divided about the best protocol stack to use, with roughly half being in favor or OSI and the other half being in favor of TCP/IP. For these institutions, interoperability takes on the additional aspect of working over disparate protocol stacks. So, where is Z39.50? At the meeting, we agreed to what services will be offered at the session and presentation layers. We also agreed on the use of query types and elements. We did not agree on what types of information should be returned as the result of a query, but we did establish a subcommittee to work on this issue. We also established a subcommittee to discuss and hopefully resolve the question of whether or not an Abstract Syntax Notation is necessary for MARC records that are to be transmitted via Z39.50. + Page 64 + Institutional Plans for Implementing Protocol Stacks Table 1 shows the protocol stack implementation plans of the institutions that attended the March meeting. In the long run, many of the organizations plan to implement both protocol stacks. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. Protocol Stack Implementation Plans INSTITUTION STACK University of California at Berkeley TCP/IP University of California TCP/IP (Division of Library Automation) Carnegie-Mellon University TCP/IP Dartmouth College TCP/IP Data Research Associates, Inc. TCP/IP Florida Center for Library Automation OSI Library of Congress OSI National Library of Canada OSI OCLC Online Computer Library Corporation, Inc. OSI Pennsylvania State University TCP/IP Research Libraries Group OSI State University of New York (SUNY) TCP/IP Thinking Machines Corporation TCP/IP Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State TCP/IP University ---------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 65 + Although several of the institutions are running a version of Z39.50 in a prototype mode, all agreed to migrate to the planned new version of the protocol, which will bring Z39.50 very close to the OSI Search and Retrieval Protocol (DP 10162/10163). The institutions that are running different stacks will test interoperability amongst themselves, and then we will tackle the much more difficult issue of crossing protocol stacks. The time table for all of this is relatively short. Some of the institutions plan to use Z39.50 in production systems by early autumn of 1990. Others plan to use it within the next year. Z39.50 Computer Conference To facilitate the work of the group, a computer conference has been established. If you are interested in implementing Z39.50, you may subscribe to the list, Z3950IW@NERVM. Since this is an older version of LISTSERV, the SUBSCRIBE command does not work. If you are on BITNET, send the following command in an e-mail message to LISTSERV@NERVM: ADD First_Name Last_Name. If you are on Internet, you can subscribe by sending me a request at FCLMTH@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU. About the Author Mark Hinnebusch Florida Center for Library Automation Suite 320 2002 NW 13th Street Gainsville, FL 32609 + Page 66 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic journal. It is sent to participants of the Public-Access Computer Systems Forum, a computer conference on BITNET. To join the PACS Forum, send an electronic mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First_Name Last_Name. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. This article is copyright (C) 1990 by Mark Hinnebusch. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computerized bulletin board/conference systems, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their collections at no cost. This message must appear on copied material. All commercial use requires permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 15 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 1, no. 2 (1990): 15- 49. --------------------------------------------------------------- Symposium on Staffing Issues and Public-Access Computer Systems Edited by Mike Ridley and Charles W. Bailey, Jr. The introduction and proliferation of public-access computer systems has had a significant impact on staffing in libraries. In an attempt to address staffing issues, The Public-Access Computer Systems Review asked a panel prominent commentators to respond to five questions. The comments of the symposium participants form a detailed assessment of the current issues and provide a diverse set of approaches and recommendations. Clearly, the central message is that libraries cannot ignore the problem of providing adequate staffing to support public-access computer systems activities. The solution to this problem in each library will reflect its mission, fiscal situation, automation priorities and activities, organizational structure, and managerial philosophy. The symposium participants are: Elizabeth H. Wood Computer Services Librarian Norris Medical Library University of Southern California ewood@phad.hsc.usc.edu David W. Lewis Head, Research and Information Services Department Homer Babbidge Library University of Connecticut dlewis@uconnvm Cynthia Rhine Systems Librarian Health Sciences Library University of North Carolina unccr1@unc Howard Pasternack Library Systems/Planning Officer Brown University Library blips15@brownvm + Page 16 + Carolyn M. Gray Associate Director Brandeis University Libraries gray@brandeis QUESTION 1: Technical support for library automation projects has traditionally been provided by library systems offices, which may perform this work in conjunction with institutional computer services. Systems offices usually have responsibility for the library's integrated system (or separate-function systems), and many systems offices are in technical services divisions. In recent years, stand-alone CD-ROM databases, networked CD- ROM systems, locally-mounted databases, remote end-user search systems (e.g., Knowledge Index), and other public- access computer systems have become increasingly common, and some reference departments have begun hiring computer specialists to support these systems. In the future, what should the respective technical support roles of systems staff, institutional computer services staff, and public services staff be in the planning, development, implementation, and support of public-access computer systems? Please consider that certain types of public- access computer systems (e.g., expert and hypermedia systems) usually require local software development. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Wood +------------------------------------------------------------- Library automation has blurred the lines between librarians and computer experts (or "consultants"). Librarians have taken it upon themselves to become sufficiently computer literate not only to talk intelligently to consultants but also to help users with new technologies. Increased knowledge on the part of librarians becomes necessary because consultants whose offices are not in the library are not accessible for immediate assistance to users. An institutional Computer Services department may be available by telephone or e-mail, but librarians at the reference desk are called upon to help users who have tried to print 3,000 references and do not know how to cancel the print command, whose workstation needs to be re-booted because it has "hung," or who have put the CD-ROM in the floppy disk drive. Immediate help with these relatively simple questions is needed. Problems created for reference librarians by these questions include an expectation of the librarians' expertise and time away from an already busy reference desk. + Page 17 + A solution is to have consultants hired by and housed in the library to help with these and more advanced questions. As library employees, these consultants are immediately available and can be trained to understand the library's service orientation and policies. These consultants can be supervised by librarians; the librarians know what they want, understand users' needs, and set library policies for the use of computers. A mutual learning process takes place: librarians learn more about computers and consultants learn more about libraries. In our medium-size academic medical library (staff of 41, including 16 librarians), the role of librarians is to be completely familiar and comfortable with whatever computers are provided for their use as part of their job. Every staff member at our library has a workstation and access to software on the LAN including electronic mail and library files such as serial check-in, book orders, and locally-mounted databases. In addition, Public Services librarians know how to use the CD-ROM products and are experts in searching the databases; they teach users to search. Learning Resources Center librarians are sufficiently computer-literate to help users with basic questions and problems, and they understand emerging technology sufficiently to supervise the consultants and make recommendations for the development of library computer operations. All librarians are encouraged to increase their familiarity with and understanding of microcomputers. The role of the consultants in our library is to maintain all library hardware (including the LAN), to provide support for users, to help in the training and support of library staff, and to teach classes to users. They maintain close relations with the institutional University Computing Services (UCS). When users want help with their own computers, they are referred to UCS. Similarly, users trying to dial into library services from their own workstations are helped by UCS; library consultants take over once the connection is made. In a very large library, full-time programmers may be needed for the OPAC or locally-mounted databases; the programmers may report to Technical Services or there may be a Systems division separate from all others that oversees library operations. Our OPAC and bibliographic databases are operated by a larger university-wide unit that does have programmers and systems experts. + Page 18 + In summary, in a library such as ours, I advocate both the on- going training of librarians and the hiring by the library of consultants or experts. Microcomputer consultants belong in the library to complement and supplement the assistance given to users by Public Services librarians. They also serve to help librarians and staff with their own computer skills. No matter which library division hires them, they will serve widely to keep library systems and automation projects running and to assist users. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Lewis +------------------------------------------------------------- As the manager of a public services department with a firm commitment to public-access computing, I think we must begin with the understanding that research and reference services are best organized around a group of client-centered experts. Maximizing the effectiveness of these librarians should be the primary organizational goal. We should not let the need to apply technology distort an otherwise appropriate organizational structure. Support from technically expert staff will be required, but raising the level of computing expertise among all public service librarians should be the prime concern. They are, and will remain, the most important resource in building and servicing electronic scholarly resources on our campuses. To encourage innovation, public service librarians need to be given equipment, software, and access to training. The materials budgets should be opened to allow the purchase of electronic resources. Entrepreneurial attitudes and activities should be supported and rewarded. This is the only way to create the many small incremental steps needed to integrate the use of electronic resources throughout the university. A structure designed to move small projects along and to service existing systems will not be suited to large-scale project development, such as OPAC or campus-wide information system implementation. These large-scale projects have been, and will continue to be, managed differently. Planning and development should have input from public services staff, but these projects will require teams from many parts of the library and the computer center. I believe it would be a critical error to build a public service department on the assumption that it will be designing and creating large systems. Public service departments will be developing small systems and encouraging the use of computerized scholarly resources, and they will be assisting users, teaching them, and promoting the use of large systems. + Page 19 + +------------------------------------------------------------- | Rhine +------------------------------------------------------------- All librarians must take on more responsibility in understanding computers and electronic formats, be it on mainframes, micros, or networks. Whether we like it or not, computers have become an integral part of library services, and our level of understanding must be raised. This is not to say that we all must be experts, but we need to have a skill level that enables us to do some basic, on-the-spot support of these systems. The library's systems staff should provide technical support for planning, developing, and implementing library systems. Some of the specific responsibilities I see for library systems staff in the future are: 1) Providing systems analysis services. 2) Providing awareness of institutional computing services' short- and long-term plans. 3) Evaluating and selecting hardware and software platforms. 4) Identifying outside support where applicable. 5) Providing disaster recovery plans. 6) Identifying commercial products vs. local development. 7) Providing local development and staff training for locally developed systems. I see a limited role for institutional computer services staff. The complexity of library systems and user interface design makes the support role of an institutional computing office very difficult. However, library systems can't operate in a vacuum, and the institutional computing services staff should have such responsibilities such as: 1) Providing library systems staff with the institutional computing services short- and long-term computing and telecommunication plans. This would include hardware platforms that are in use and those being considered as well as institutional wiring plans, standards, protocols, topologies, and operating systems that are in use and under consideration. + Page 20 + 2) Making documentation and specifications of campus computing services available to library systems staff. 3) Working with library systems staff on integration plans. 4) Providing support for remote access to and from library systems. The technical support responsibilities of public services staff should be to provide the users with whatever is needed to use the systems. Their responsibilities must include: 1) Training and supporting end users in USE of public- access systems. 2) Assisting library systems staff in planning, developing and implementing public-access systems. Public services staff offer a great deal to system prototyping, representing user needs and determining what level of functionality is required for the success of a public- access system. 3) Possessing an advanced level of expertise in using application systems and a "basic" level of understanding of the technical aspects of these systems. 4) Supporting users with working with hardware (i.e., PCs terminals, printers, and CD-ROMs) and understanding how hardware interfaces with the public-access system (i.e., file transfer, CD-ROM extensions, and printer setups). + Page 21 + +------------------------------------------------------------- | Pasternack +------------------------------------------------------------- The pace of technological change in libraries and academic institutions makes it difficult to predict what the future roles of the library systems office, the computing center, and the individual library departments will, or should, be in planning, implementing, and supporting public-access systems. To a great extent, the size of the library, the nature of the systems it supports, and the technical expertise of the staff in the library and the computing center will determine the relative responsibilities of the different groups for implementing and maintaining library systems. No theoretical model covers the needs of the general academic library, the multi-unit system, and the specialized health sciences center. Because I am most familiar with academic libraries, my remarks will be almost exclusively directed towards the general academic library. In recent years, a substantial body of publication has focused upon library/computer center relationships, with a particular emphasis upon whether the institutions will merge or whether one will subsume the other. There have also been some highly publicized mergers and theoretical justifications for reorganizations at specific institutions. Since some of these mergers have been largely based on local political factors, without further research on organizational performance it seems premature to draw any conclusions as to what constitutes an optimum organizational structure for libraries and computing centers. At Brown University, the organizational structure has been heavily influenced by the Network of Scholars' Workstations Project, described in College and Research Libraries, January, 1987. Brown was one of the first academic institutions to implement a campus wide-area network, and the ability to deliver information to offices, classrooms, and dormitories has shaped our thinking. For example, planning for our online catalog was based on the assumption that a major portion of use would be from terminals outside of the Library. Consequently, our online catalog was implemented as a joint project of the Library and Computing & Information Services (CIS), with each organization contributing resources and personnel. + Page 22 + The partnership initiated by the OPAC implementation has now been formalized in a planning group of the senior staffs from both the Library and CIS. The objective of the group is to define the information resources necessary for Brown University across the next decade, based on the shared acknowledgement that the Library is one of the major information providers on campus and that library resources must be accessible to users on the campus wide-area network. The initiatives for this planning effort came from both the University Librarian and the Vice President for Computing & Information Services. We hope that one of the by-products of this planning will be a closer working relationship between staff in the Library and staff in CIS, with a concomitant "cross fertilization" of talent which will be beneficial for both organizations. To further these ends, we have begun a series of smaller projects involving the staff of the Library Systems/Planning Office, the Reference Department, and the technical staff in CIS. For example, a Library/CIS task force is currently investigating the technical issues related to networking CD-ROMs. Similarly, reference librarians will be working with their user services counterparts in CIS to produce a publication that describes "Information Resources at Brown University." The partnership with CIS also extends to end-user support. Documentation about the library OPAC is posted on the campus academic mainframe and can be printed or displayed by anyone with a mainframe account. OPAC user training is taught by a reference librarian as part of the CIS computer training program. Similar efforts are underway for support of CD-ROMs and other services. Within the Library, the Systems/Planning Office is largely responsible for coordinating the implementation and support of automated systems. The Library Systems/Planning Officer serves as Project Manager for the OPAC, and three FTE programmer/analysts based in CIS (and funded by the Library) report indirectly to him. This organizational structure allows the programmers to participate fully in CIS technical planning, but also to be responsive to Library needs. The Systems/Planning Office staff includes two systems/planning analysts (librarians), one of whom supports public services and the other of whom supports technical services. Both analysts are expected to work closely with the staff in line departments and in CIS to plan and implement systems. The positions are relatively new and, in some instances, the lines of responsibility are not yet clearly drawn. However, the basic premise is that the systems/planning analysts will provide the technical assistance and consulting needed to enable line departments to support existing systems and to plan and implement new services. + Page 23 + An important aspect of the systems/planning analysts' work is liaison with CIS. Each of the analysts is responsible for working with staff in CIS on such matters as training library staff on mainframe and workstation software, trouble-shooting problems with the campus wide-area network, and planning for the integration of library information with the campus electronic environment. One area that has not yet been satisfactorily dealt with is technical support for microcomputers and terminals used by library staff. At present, the Library has over 100 of these devices for a staff of 150 FTE. While CIS provides training in the use of "supported" microcomputer software such as Microsoft Word for the PC and Macintosh, there is also a need in the Library to deal with hardware maintenance issues. The analysts in the Systems/Planning Office currently provide hardware support, but the arrangement is not totally satisfactory. In about a year or so, we plan to have at least one microcomputer support technician based in the Systems/Planning Office. The organizational model developed at Brown is thus far working satisfactorily, but the success of the model is highly dependent upon the goodwill of staff, particularly at the senior levels of the Library and CIS. Should there be major changes in personnel, it is possible that the Library and CIS would find themselves in competition with one another for resources. How well the model serves us in the future will depend upon the commitment of the individuals involved. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Gray +------------------------------------------------------------- The question of who will play what role in planning, developing, implementing, and supporting public-access systems may be more appropriately framed by asking what perspectives will be represented. The institutional setting will often determine where the functions will reside, thus to attempt to determine the "best" scenario is not very fruitful. A more universal series of questions of interest to all types of libraries are: For whom are we designing these systems? Who will provide the best perspectives for ensuring that the design is sound, the ideas will be accepted in the organization, the implementation will go smoothly, support will be continuous and responsive to user needs, and evaluation will be iterative to ensure a constantly evolving product? We can borrow a multiple perspectives approach introduced in the technology assessment field to help us plan, develop, implement, and support our next generation of public-access systems in libraries. + Page 24 + Linstone [1] presents a multiple perspective model for problem solving in complex organizational and societal settings where technology plays an important role. His model suggests using a team of people each representing three perspectives: Technology, Organizational, and Personal (T + O + P). The technical perspective is rational and analytic. This perspective uses terms like alternatives, trade-offs, optimization, data, and models: "The United States as a culture is the most strongly T-oriented culture in the world. . . We define quality of life (QOL) in terms of numerical indicators--so that it would be more precise to label it quantity of life." [2] This is the perspective with which most of us working in the field of information technology feel most comfortable. The organizational perspective views the world from the point of view of affected and affecting organizations. This perspective often distrusts statistics and is concerned that a new policy or change will threaten the organization in some way: "The world seen from the pure O perspective in ideal form is an orderly progression from state to state, with an occasional minor crisis along the way, for which experience and the procedural manual have the answers." [3] As Linstone [4] states: In sum, the organizational perspective helps us with sociotechnical systems in at least the following ways: * identification of the pressures in support of, and opposition to, the technology; * insight into the societal ability to absorb a technology--organizational incrementalism is an important bound; * increasing ability to facilitate or retard implementation of technology by understanding how to gain organizational support; * drawing forth impacts not apparent with other perspectives, for example, based on realities created within an organization; * development of practical policy (for example, new coalitions). + Page 25 + The organizational perspective may be the most important perspective in insuring that the technical vision is incorporated into the institutional setting. The reference librarians or collection development librarians who have spent a career developing relationships with individual faculty and academic departments may be in a much better position to represent the organizational perspective than the technical expert. The personal perspective is the hardest to explain. The "P" perspective is that of the individual's eyes and brain. The personal perspective relies upon intuition, leadership, and self- interest. There are four roles played by the "P" perspective: 1) Understanding the total decision process; 2) Better understanding of the O perspective; 3) Identification of individual characteristics and behavior; and 4) Communication of complex problems and issues. [5] Personal perspectives are often presented by the creative individual, who may or may not have technical expertise, who is able to be objective, does not get bogged down in standard operating procedures (SOPs), and who provides vision and leadership. It is the power of the three perspectives working in concert that presents the most promise for future public-access library systems. If we attempt to apply the concept of multiple perspectives to the library environment, we could have the "T" perspective represented by the library systems staff and the institutional computer services staff. The "O" perspective may best be represented by members of public services staff, union representatives, or personnel librarians. The "P" perspective may be best represented by end user involvement--a student, a faculty member, a prominent member of the library user community, or a creative and objective librarian. This model does not imply that the team must have three members and three members only, but rather suggests that the combination of perspectives is more important than trying to decide where the "best" place is for the planning, development, implementation, and support functions to reside. + Page 26 + Nolan [6] suggests that the most effective organizational management of information systems is by committee. He suggests using an executive steering committee to provide direction, rationing of resources, structuring for the effective use of computing facilities, selecting key managers of computing facilities, advising and auditing, and evaluating. As Nolan notes, the committee structure is cumbersome, but it seems to be the most effective way of dealing with decentralization, and public-access systems are by their very nature decentralized. The multiple perspectives approach is a committee approach. It is suggested here that the T + O + P perspectives be represented on a steering committee and the functions of the committee parallel those suggested by Nolan, with the addition of an important planning component. This may sound like a "sloppy" management approach, with too much involvement from too many people. In the long run, the time invested in soliciting input from the various perspectives will be rewarded in the design of the end product, the ease of implementation, ongoing management, and the acceptance by the user community. The committee can help to manage the complex tasks of encouraging innovation while maintaining control and efficiency. + Page 27 + QUESTION 2: Each library is different, but, generally speaking, what organizational structures seem most appropriate to facilitate the technical support roles identified in the first question? Please speak to the issue of reporting lines. For example, should public and technical services divisions have separate technical support groups? Alternatively, should individual departments have technical support staff? If decentralized technical support efforts are envisioned, how should the efforts of these groups be coordinated? What is the place of temporary project-oriented work groups, which may cross departmental lines, in your scenario? +------------------------------------------------------------- | Wood +------------------------------------------------------------- Microcomputers are becoming ubiquitous in libraries. Apart from the needs of users, library staff in all divisions are using word processing, database management, and e-mail software. If a library has a LAN, librarians, library assistants, and clerical support staff may all be using the same software. Maintenance of staff hardware is streamlined by providing similar equipment in all divisions. It makes sense, therefore, to have microcomputer consultants who work throughout the library. They may report to a librarian, who in turn reports to Public Services or Learning Resources, but the consultants serve everyone. Requests for their help will be filtered through their supervising librarian. These consultants may report to Public or Technical Services, Learning Resources, or "Systems"; however, for maximum efficiency, they assist in all divisions. Rather than having Reference, for example, hire its own experts, the consultants will be familiar with overall library computing. They will need a supervisor who screens the questions they receive and organizes their workflow. They will be besieged on all sides and will need a "triage" system to manage their time and ensure that help is provided to those who need it most. Many public-access products, such as indexes on CD-ROM or interactive learning programs, involve more than one library department. Rather than having one consultant taking care of the LAN and another consultant assisting Public Services with workstations and training, the same consultant can do both. + Page 28 + "Temporary project-oriented work groups" would operate, in this scenario, through the same supervising librarian. No matter which divisions were affected, one librarian would coordinate workflow and ensure that the work groups were used for maximum efficiency. This supervising librarian could report, as mentioned above, to any division or this person could be separate from existing divisions and report to Administration. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Lewis +------------------------------------------------------------- Public services departments need control over both the resources required for project development and their equipment. The day-to-day servicing of machines should be provided by a support group within the public services department. Students can monitor equipment and handle paper problems, reboot systems, and change disks. Loading of new versions of software and other routine updating, maintenance, and equipment troubleshooting should be handled within the department. This may require technical staff, but service contracts should be used wherever possible. A service contract on a CD-ROM LAN probably makes more sense than trying to support the hardware with in-house expertise. When these systems fail, a very high level of technical support is required; to maintain this type of person on staff will be difficult to justify. When a department's need for in-house technical support justifies a position, it should be assigned to the department. Most libraries will provide some level of technical support within the library organization, usually from a separate support unit. The allocation of these resources and the priorities set will inevitably be the cause of conflict; the results are unlikely to satisfy public service department's needs. Coordination should be applied administratively and should be given less emphasis than is generally the case, especially for small projects. Innovation at the departmental level is more important than coordination at this stage in the development of public-access computing. + Page 29 + Outside expertise can also be used in small-scale development projects. Purchasing an expert system to assist in the reference process or a computer-based library instruction package is probably a much better idea than trying to create it yourself. If a department sees the need for many locally developed or modified systems, it may be appropriate to add programing staff to the department--the closer to public service librarians, the better. In most cases, alternatives, such as the use of temporary staff or contracting out programing projects, can and should be found. It will be important to develop working relationships between public service librarians and computer center staff, and to find the means to pay for expert services when they are required. Large-scale projects will continue to require working groups which include staff from throughout the library and from the computer center. Project management skills will become increasingly important. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Rhine +------------------------------------------------------------- The library systems department should be a separate department that reports directly to the Director. The increasing importance of networking and integration in public-access systems requires a department that can monitor systems needs in each of the library's departments at the same time it prepares an overall systems plan for the library. This overall plan has to be considered in relationship to the institution's computing facilities and services. To separate public services and technical services systems is artificial. Each may require a different view of the system, with different functional requirements, but the two must be planned, developed, and maintained with all aspects under consideration. In the typical scenario of limited resources, priorities and decisions must be made by weighing all departments' computing needs. Each member of the systems department should be designated as a liaison to a specific department or group of departments for providing the following services: 1) Assessing departmental computing needs. 2) Assisting in determining departmental priorities. 3) Identifying the level of systems expertise available in each library department. + Page 30 + 4) Steering independent departmental systems development efforts away from incompatibilities with the overall systems plan so that better system integration is possible. 5) Coordinating departmental development with the systems staff as well as with the rest of the staff. Temporary project-oriented work groups should be just that-- temporary. Temporary work groups have a place in planning, developing, and testing only. At the point of implementation, the responsibilities of a work group must already be known to individuals and/or departments whose job descriptions, coordination needs, and support responsibilities are clearly defined. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Pasternack +------------------------------------------------------------- As indicated in the response to Question 1, the role of the Library Systems/Planning Office at Brown University is to evaluate the technical feasibility of library plans and to provide guidance and technical support to library departments. Support for computing in the Brown University Library is highly centralized in the Systems/Planning Office, with two systems/planning analysts (librarians) responsible for supporting technical and public services respectively. This structure was implemented in order to concentrate technical expertise within the Systems/Planning Office and at the same time to provide support for individual departmental needs. While more decentralized models were considered, particularly one that provided a technical support position in the Reference Department, the Library determined that it did not have the personnel resources to support overlapping positions. Because all library departments were using similar technologies and were linked together by the campus wide-area network, technical support positions in individual departments would invariably overlap and compete with those in the Systems/Planning Office. It would be presumptuous to assume that the Brown University Library model of centralized computing support is appropriate for all institutions, but I am persuaded that the model is best able to cope with the increasingly integrated nature of library computing. + Page 31 + While the focus on PACS-L has been on the public services aspects of computing, it should be kept in mind that our online catalogs are used by the library technical processing units as well. Indeed, one of the major reasons why some systems offices are based in technical services is the initial OPAC focus on loading existing MARC databases. With the implementation of LANs and WANs and the loading of non-MARC databases in our OPACs, there is a need for a single department to take responsibility for library-wide systems planning and support. With the centralized model there is also the need to encourage individual departments to initiate projects and to assume responsibility for routine departmental work efforts related to computing. The two systems/planning analysts at Brown work closely with the line departments in reviewing departmental computing objectives and in planning for the implementation of new services. In some instances, the analysts play a major role in serving as catalysts for change. The analysts have had previous work experience in either cataloging or reference, so they are familiar with the issues affecting the departmental managers and staff. However, the level of support provided to individual units will depend upon the technical competencies to be found in the departments. The staff of the Systems/Planning Office is also represented on all interdepartmental task forces and planning groups appointed to make recommendations on computer-related issues. The Library relies heavily on ad hoc committees and groups appointed to recommend solutions to problems which affect more than one unit or department. A practical example of this relates to the networking of the library CD-ROMs. At the request of the Assistant University Librarian for Public Services, the Systems/Planning Analyst for Public Services is working with CIS to determine the technical feasibility of making the library's CD-ROMs available to the campus WAN. Once the technical feasibility of the project is determined, an ad hoc group reporting to the AUL for Public Services, and including representatives from public services, technical services, and systems, will determine which CD-ROM workstations and databases to network. A centralized library systems office such as that at Brown University functions most effectively when it reports to the chief operating officer of the library. Placing systems in either public or technical services hinders its ability to provide equitable support to all library units and encourages the proliferation of local technical support groups. As to the appropriate level of the systems office within the library organization (e.g., a division, a department, or a unit), I feel this is largely a local political question. + Page 32 + +------------------------------------------------------------- | Gray +------------------------------------------------------------- A committee approach provides one type of structure for ongoing planning and development of public-access systems, but a committee cannot manage people effectively. There are very practical considerations related to daily operations and reporting lines that must be addressed. The shifts in the needs of organizations as a result of technological change suggest a new approach to creating organizational structures. A matrix reporting structure can be an effective organizational approach to managing staff performing a variety of technical functions. A core systems staff pared down to the essentials for management, daily operations, and basic technical support functions is my ideal for most library organizations. The systems manager (whatever the title) reports to a senior level administrator who has some understanding of technology. The small staff has its advantages and disadvantages. The economic advantages are obvious. The primary organizational advantage is that it can open up opportunities for involvement in technical operations from a variety of people outside the systems office. The major disadvantage of a small core staff is that illness, vacations, or maternity leaves can wreak havoc in daily operations and support functions. A matrix approach brings people into the systems operations from all the user areas of the library. In the matrix model, people report to the person in charge of a particular function for the portion of their job related to that function. For instance, an individual creating bibliographic tools that will eventually be managed by the systems office may be assigned to report to the systems manager for a portion of their work week over a period of time. The person managing the installation and operation of a local area network of CD-ROM products may have a portion of their time allocated to systems. + Page 33 + A job description is developed for a particular task or function that has been identified as a priority for development. This can be an iterative process working in concert with the department requesting the development or support, the systems office, and an individual with skills to handle the task or function. One important thing to keep in mind is to make sure there is a clear delineation of both responsibility and accountability. A person is assigned to the job and is relieved of an appropriate amount of work from his or her other assignment. The whole library benefits when we create opportunities for staff from a variety of areas to work closely with systems staff in designing and/or implementing new technology, such as a reference tool to be accessible on a public workstation. Organizationally, a staff member may have as a part of her on-going assignment the development of reference applications on Macintosh computers and the other part of her work day is in the reference department performing traditional reference functions. Job descriptions are written to reflect the various areas of responsibilities. Reporting may be to two different supervisors for the different functions being performed. Evaluations are done jointly by all the persons having responsibility for a person's work over the period being evaluated. This gives the staff member working in more than one position an opportunity to be evaluated for all of their work. The matrix reporting structure also lessens the stress on a person who might otherwise be reporting to one supervisor for their primary responsibilities and working with other staff on a project outside their regular job description. Without the formal reporting line changes, a staff member may be seen "slacking" off their regular job or not making enough of a time commitment for what may be viewed as "volunteer" work for another department. The collaborative writing of evaluations has had some side benefits at Brandeis. Supervisors report gaining a greater appreciation for another department's work through discussions with other supervisors about the quantity and quality of work done. In the matrix model, one can achieve the best of both centralized and decentralized approaches to providing technical support. Coordination, responsibility, and accountability for technical support functions through the systems office is achieved by creating dual reporting lines. Duplication of effort is reduced and centralized training of support staff can be achieved. The decentralization of support staff helps ensure better response to the specific needs of individual departments. Since technical expertise is spread throughout the organization, the overall technical expertise of the library staff increases. + Page 34 + QUESTION 3: Well-qualified technical staff are difficult to find, they are expensive, and they are hard to retain. What is the best strategy for recruiting and retaining technical support staff for public-access computer systems in terms of required degrees and/or training, required experience, salary incentives (considering equity issues), and career advancement opportunities? +------------------------------------------------------------- | Wood +------------------------------------------------------------- In Los Angeles, we have had success in recruiting consultants with experience rather than formal degrees; this may have allowed us to pay them less, although we have had job applicants with formal training apply. We have been pleased with the ease with which consultants from a sales or customer support background have adapted to helping faculty and students; they also have superior knowledge of how software has developed and are familiar with a wide range of products. They are paid considerably more than library assistants and only slightly less than entry-level librarians. In some cases, they could make more working for computer stores or doing private consulting; the advantages of working for us are the lessening of the stress found in the sales arena and the benefits package we offer. Our technical support personnel like the library environment and working with faculty, researchers, and students. They see the university experience as looking good on their future resumes. Our experience of hiring consultants is only a few years old, so we cannot comment on long-term expectations. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Lewis +------------------------------------------------------------- As stated above, I believe libraries should make every attempt to raise the general level of computer skills possessed by the public services staff, and that, where possible, hardware should be supported with service contracts. For most libraries, development projects are less important than implementing, with only slight modification, systems which can be purchased or acquired from other libraries. + Page 35 + Such strategies should limit the need for large numbers of technical staff. But, even so, technical staff will be required. The key issue is to define positions clearly and to make sure that the rank and salary is appropriate to the work, and visa versa. Because these positions are new to many libraries and because in many cases the first staff to fill them were self-taught and without credentials, libraries often have trouble getting this right the first time around. Practice should make us better at it. The credentials required should be those appropriate for the position; there is no reason to insist on an MLS. Salaries paid will need to meet the market. This is not an equity issue. In many cases, technical staff will be paid more than librarians. Librarians need to understand and accept that they will not be the only professionals working in libraries, and, in some cases, they will not be the highest paid. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Rhine +------------------------------------------------------------- The best strategy I see for recruitment in terms of the intangibles is to offer flexible hours and advertise that the systems job includes interesting and varied job duties, research opportunities, and a chance to be in a setting where new technologies and programming opportunities are always under consideration. If you can offer control over a budget, all the better. Required degrees should include information science or library science with computer science courses. Training in database design, programming, systems analysis, and telecommunications is highly desirable. The library degree is important in understanding the complexity and the "big picture" of what library systems entail. However, if you have systems staff with good library science backgrounds, someone with a computer science degree and/or training may be appropriate. The experience level varies with what you've got already. Someone on the systems staff should have experience with large mainframe or network systems. Most important is that your systems people have the desire to continue to educate themselves and monitor new technologies and programming developments. + Page 36 + As far as salary incentives are concerned, if you want to retain good technical staff, you have to pay competitive salaries. If your library administrators cannot find a way to offer competitive salaries for both systems and traditional library staff, you can't expect to retain good people. We live in a society where success is measured largely by money, and qualified, ambitious people are going to expect money as a reward. We may find people on occasion that don't require competitive salaries, but we can't keep counting on it. If we can't pay the market price for technical staff, we have to expect that they will only stay on a short-term basis. If you're concerned about equity, expect to get what you pay for. The advancement opportunities depend on your organizational structure. If you have a systems department reporting to the Director, the head of your systems department would be a high-level position. However, you must accept that there will be turnover. If you can offer technical staff the opportunity to gain experience with a large integrated system or to work with projects that are interesting and challenging, you'll be more likely to recruit good people, but you will have to accept that they will move on, so cover yourself for when they leave. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Pasternack +------------------------------------------------------------- Generally speaking, there are three levels of personnel primarily responsible for library technical support: (1) systems librarians/analysts, (2) programmers, and (3) technicians. At Brown, both systems librarians/analysts and programmers provide systems support, and we are planning in the future to hire one or more technicians. We have found that the most important factor in recruiting technical personnel is salary. In several candidate recruitments, the size of the candidate pool was directly related to the salary offered. The staff in the Systems/Planning Office and the library programmers are on the University's EDP salary scale, which is 10 percent higher than the scale used for comparable non-EDP jobs. Even with this salary differential, it has been difficult to recruit experienced personnel, particularly programmers, because our campus salaries are not fully competitive with those being offered by private industry. The need to pay programmers higher salaries than librarians has not been a major issue. Most of our staff recognize that programmers can generally command higher salaries than librarians at comparable administrative levels. + Page 37 + At one time, I also believed that having a "state-of-the-art" system was an important inducement to attracting experienced technical personnel. I have found, however, that individuals experienced with third generation systems, such our DBMS system (ADABAS), can often command salaries that are beyond our means. In a recent recruitment for a programmer/analyst manager, we had many candidates who requested higher salaries than we could afford. There have also been times when we had to hire personnel who were not fully experienced with ADABAS, and on those occasions we had to expend considerable sums of money on programmer training. Having a "state-of-the-art" system is thus a two-edged sword. We do not specifically require an MLS degree for the systems librarians/analysts or a computer science degree for the programmers. The librarian/analyst positions require either an MLS or a degree in computing science. In recruiting for these positions, we felt that we would have a larger candidate pool if we did not have specific degree requirements. While both of the library systems/planning analysts we hired have an MLS, we also recruited a very capable programmer who did not have a bachelor's degree. I believe that work experience and demonstrated knowledge are more important in systems work than formal degrees. This is particularly true in the programming area where many educational institutions are graduating students who are ill-prepared to work on large and complex mainframe systems. I really don't have any sage advice concerning career advancement opportunities. In some institutions there will be non- administrative promotional tracks, such as faculty status ranks, which provide for advancement within job grades based upon performance and professional contributions. While librarians at Brown do not have faculty status, a two-track system for librarians enables the librarians in the Systems/Planning Office to be promoted within position. Programmers, in general, have a greater number of career advancement opportunities than librarians, given the size of the job market and the demand for experienced programmers. In the case of library programmers, this may mean accepting a position on a non-library project. While I regret losing an experienced programmer, I recognize that in order to advance professionally, a programmer may need to accept a position working on another project at Brown University or elsewhere. + Page 38 + +------------------------------------------------------------- | Gray +------------------------------------------------------------- Recruitment and retention of well-qualified staff is a common problem among non-profit organizations. There are no easy answers. For the most part, it is impossible for many of us in libraries to compete with high-tech firms for well-qualified technical staff, so we must compete on a different basis. There are some organizational "quality of work-life" issues that can help in the recruitment and retention of staff. A reputation for flexibility in scheduling, grade and salary levels that reflect responsibility and qualifications, a track record for promoting within an organization, opportunities for educational benefits, and child-care benefits are all important for the modern work force. Individuals who feel they are valued for their contributions and who are given responsibility and independence are going to stay with you longer than those who do not feel appreciated, are not clear about their responsibilities, and feel they are being watched over all the time. When thinking of recruitment and retention, it is also important to consider in-house training. If an organization develops depth of expertise, the loss of a "star" is not as critical as it is for the organization overly dependent upon a few experts. + Page 39 + QUESTION 4: In addition to technical support, staff training and end-user instruction play critical roles in the success of public-access computer systems. Who should perform these functions (e.g., library instruction staff, electronic information coordinators, or systems staff), what types of training and instruction seem most useful, and how extensive should these efforts be? +------------------------------------------------------------- | Wood +------------------------------------------------------------- Staff training is crucial to smooth operation. Staff using microcomputers must have adequate and appropriate training when they are first hired and whenever new software is installed. Classes should be arranged (with division head approval for the time from work) and one-on-one help provided as necessary. Group instruction is always more efficient, and simple sheets of instructions lessen the calls for one-on-one help. The supervisory librarian described under Question 2 can coordinate these efforts; consultants teach and support staff as well as users. Any innovations, such as a LAN or change in word processing software, should be announced in a non-threatening way. In-house documentation helps and personal attention for those who are less comfortable with computers. Staff input should be encouraged. Requests, complaints, and suggestions should go to the supervising librarian who then organizes the consultants' time and efforts in addressing staff needs. End-user training involves both bibliographic instruction and computer literacy. As with staff, users are encouraged to come to classes before we offer lengthy one-on-one training sessions. Class hand-outs are designed to help users after class when they try out what they have learned. These classes may be a joint effort of consultants and public services librarians. Teaching searching of online catalogs or locally-mounted databases, for example, is usually done by librarians; however, users who want to dial into these databases from their homes or offices may need the assistance of microcomputer consultants. Users who want to download search results into word processing or database management programs will also benefit from classes or support from consultants. The combined efforts of public services librarians and consultants, coordinated by the supervisory librarian, can form a continuum of training for users that maximizes both. + Page 40 + +------------------------------------------------------------- | Lewis +------------------------------------------------------------- End-user instruction is the reference librarian's job. Electronic resources are library resources, and librarians should integrate their use into general and specialized instruction sessions. When responding to a reference query, instruction in the use of an OPAC or a CD-ROM should be provided in the same way instruction is commonly provided to users of printed sources. Supporting remote users is a complication. Part of the problem involves technical issues in negotiating the network. Most campus networks are still largely ad hoc and communications issues can become complex quickly. Reference librarians should know enough to understand the questions, but it should be a computer center function to provide the answers. This problem will lessen as campus networks mature, as standards are applied, and as front-ends are developed. The second part of supporting remote users is more difficult. This is the intellectual interaction which is the heart of the reference process. How do you do question negotiation over the network? How to you instruct? We don't know much about this now, so the sooner we begin to experiment the better. High-end solutions, such as expert systems and knowbots bear watching, but most of us should begin small with e-mail reference services and bulletin boards. The key to successful library services will be the ability to communicate with our users. Our users are on the network; we need to discover how best to work with them there. Staff training must require both the expectation that increased computing skills are a necessary part of a satisfactory performance and the resources to support the acquisition of the required skills. Public service librarians need to be aware of how to locate data in electronic form in the same way that they are now knowledgeable about printed sources. If they do not, they are not doing their jobs. This will require more computer expertise than many librarians now have, so programs that support the acquisition of these skills are required and should be an administrative priority. The most effective program will start by putting a machine on every librarian's desk and providing the time required to learn to use it. Formal training, including course work, needs to be encouraged. + Page 41 + +------------------------------------------------------------- | Rhine +------------------------------------------------------------- Training for staff should be done by staff members designated from each department who work with the systems liaison to get sufficient training where technical knowledge is necessary. This method can be better coordinated with the department's schedule and turnover rate. It also takes into consideration the level of expertise required for that particular department. I firmly believe that staff training is too large a job and requires too many perspectives to be a responsibility of the systems department. End-user training and documentation should be provided by library instruction staff. The library instruction staff should be able to consult the systems liaison for clarification of technical issues. There should be point-of-use training provided by documentation as well as by library staff members. There should be classes given ahead of time by library instruction staff. Training and support of users by classes and at point-of-use is one of the areas where libraries provide a great value over competitive information services, and libraries should exploit this advantage. There need to be staff dedicated to identifying and providing the best training and support the library can offer to its patrons. Systems staff should work in conjunction with library instruction staff to provide common user interfaces, online context-sensitive help, and methods of feedback to determine users' conceptual models of public-access systems. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Pasternack +------------------------------------------------------------- What is most important in end-user education is for the trainer to have good teaching skills, to be knowledgeable about the system, and to be familiar with user needs. Hopefully, the trainer will be a member of the reference department or whatever unit is responsible for library instruction programs. But there may be times when the systems office or the computing center staff need to assist reference in instituting training programs or in conducting training sessions. + Page 42 + Many librarians, both in systems and in reference, may not be fully experienced or comfortable with providing instruction in an electronic environment. In this regard, the local computing center can sometimes be quite helpful. The Brown CIS staff have a strong user education program, and we have relied heavily on their expertise and advice in reaching the "electronic audience." In turn, CIS has benefitted from the Library's knowledge about providing individualized instruction. Similarly, the User Services staff in CIS and the Library Reference Department share responsibility for answering OPAC questions--terminal emulation and logon questions from dial-in users are referred to CIS; searching questions are referred to Reference. We have found that in a highly distributed electronic environment, the user is not certain about who the primary information provider is or where to go for assistance, and that all user support groups need to be knowledgeable about their relative responsibilities for answering user questions. Our OPAC was designed to operate in a networked environment and offers two modes of searching: (1) menu-driven and (2) direct command. Most users are able to master the mechanics of the menus without documentation or instruction. At one time, we tried offering training sessions about the menu system, but discontinued the training because of lack of demand. One of our reference librarians continues to offer direct command training as part of the CIS computer training program. Attendance has been variable, and we have had to learn how to market our services more effectively. Documentation for the menus and command language is posted on the Brown mainframe and is available from the Library literature distribution racks. Most of the documentation was developed by the Systems/Planning Office with the assistance of Reference. Staff training at the Brown University Library is largely the responsibility of individual departments working with the Systems/Planning Office. Theoretically, the systems/planning analysts train the departmental managers and supervisors, and they in turn train the departmental staff. In practice, the technical and training competencies vary from department to department, and the level of support and training offered by the Systems/Planning Office has had to be adjusted accordingly. Given limited personnel resources, we try to rely upon training expertise wherever it is found. In our initial OPAC implementation, two volunteer trainers from Reference and Cataloging assisted with providing introductory search training to all our staff. A reference librarian continues to provide this training for new staff members library-wide. We also rely upon CIS to provide mainframe and microcomputer training sessions tailored for library staff. + Page 43 + Brown is thus highly pragmatic in its approach to training and relies upon staff from various library units and CIS to support systems used in the libraries. We have found that no single department or office has the personnel or expertise to provide training support for all the diverse systems we use. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Gray +------------------------------------------------------------- A multi-faceted approach to staff training and end-user instruction is necessary to address the different ways people learn. [7] Computer-aided instruction, written materials personal instruction, video, and publications are all important tools for training. Staff training and end-user instruction should be coordinated through a sub-committee of the technology steering committee. Staff training is probably best done by systems staff or the "extended systems staff." Whoever is training should know the basics of adult education--how to teach adults, what are the motivators to learning, and how to introduce technical skills. It may be necessary to provide separate training sessions for supervisors, depending upon the individuals. It is important to be sensitive to the nuances of the structure of training situations. Individuals representing the organizational and personal perspectives on the steering committee will be helpful in this regard. End-user instruction is best coordinated through the steering committee with the individuals in charge of user education. End- user instruction is an extension of the various types of library education we present to our users. + Page 44 + QUESTION 5: What other thoughts do you have on the issue of providing adequate staffing to support public-access computer systems? +------------------------------------------------------------- | Wood +------------------------------------------------------------- At the Norris Medical Library, public access microcomputing has grown gradually and, perhaps, haphazardly over the past few years. Responsibility for online catalogs, bibliographic instruction,software support, and LAN management may be fragmented among library staff. At some point, these efforts need to be centrally coordinated. As these activities may all involve the use of microcomputers and, as described above, they may overlap in content, the most efficient organizational structure brings them together. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Lewis +------------------------------------------------------------- It is important to remember what business we are in. Most libraries are not and should not be in the technology development business. We apply technology; we don't usually invent it. A library is a service organization whose goal is to link students and faculty with the resources; increasingly, these resources will be electronic. Public-access computing in academic libraries is a reality now, but if it is to be applied widely, it will require a large number of public service staff working with schools and departments on many small-scale projects. The organizations we build need to encourage and support this type of innovation. Public-access computing in libraries currently confronts two organizational conflicts. The first is that the skills possessed by many public service librarians and the skills needed to operate in an electronic environment do not yet match. I believe this will be a short-term problem. Remember that OPACs, microcomputers, CD-ROMs, and electronic mail have become common and accepted parts of library service only in the last several years. My experience has been that staff, given support, adapt remarkably quickly and with surprising ease. It would be a mistake to overreact to the current situation; quick fixes which concentrate skills and responsibilities in the hands (and minds) of a few technical staff or the few librarians who have "taken" to the technology, might be useful in accomplishing a few quick projects, but over the long haul this will be a counterproductive strategy. + Page 45 + The second conflict is that the organizational structures required to implement large-scale projects are different than those that are required to effectively operate the resulting systems. An integrated library system requires a great deal of coordination. Our current need is different; it is to encourage small-scale innovation, both to make incremental improvements in how our big systems are used and to bring electronic resources to scholars and students across the university. In many cases, the latter task will be done one faculty member at a time. To do this well will require a knowledgeable staff willing to take risks and resources which can be used by these staff to apply public-access computer solutions to a wide variety of problems. If these two critical pieces are not in place, the other staffing issues addressed in this symposium will not matter. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Rhine +------------------------------------------------------------- ALL librarians MUST be able to understand more about electronic formats--many do, many do not. Libraries need to develop a way to re-educate their staff to better understand how systems work and to interact with technology. Because of the complexity and size of library systems, library schools need to start teaching the generic components of computer architectures, including operating systems and their interaction with applications. Library students should be taught more about algorithms and how they affect the efficiency of a database, especially in relationship to bibliographic information. Teaching different programming techniques and concepts that better manipulate information is essential. Most importantly, library schools need to fill the gap in manipulating information with computers. Teaching library students how to use electronic mail, spreadsheets, and relational databases isn't enough. Our field is too complex and challenging to provide such trivial education. + Page 46 + +------------------------------------------------------------- | Pasternack +------------------------------------------------------------- A personnel issue which is becoming of increasing concern to me is the need to support the growing variety of incompatible technical systems being introduced in library public service units. In our Reference Department, the reference staff are expected to be knowledgeable about our OPAC, RLIN, OCLC, Dialog, BRS, Medline, the Silver Platter CD-ROMs on both the PC and Macintosh, the WilsonDisc CD-ROMs, the Science Citation Index CD- ROM, the Academic Index CD-ROM, e-mail on CMS, a campus electronic bulletin board, and PCs and Macintoshes for staff use. I suspect we are not unique in this regard. Computing centers can usually deal with the variety of systems which need to be supported by assigning one or more staff members to become experts in a particular system. However, in library public services we seem to be acquiring more equipment and systems than we can handle. While we have tried to standardize on certain devices, the pressures for bringing up the latest vendor products are enormous. Often, the decision to acquire a particular product is based upon collection development considerations, and the user support issues are secondary. While there is growing recognition here and elsewhere that user support is critical to the successful implementation of an electronic service, we have a ways to go in "institutionalizing" user support as part of the acquisition/collection development process. +------------------------------------------------------------- | Gray +------------------------------------------------------------- The traditional organizational boundaries which have defined technical and public service library staff have been shifting with each new wave of technology. Fragile shorelines change with each succeeding season, and our libraries change with each new technological breakthrough. Organizational boundaries will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and technological change will continue to exert influence upon the jobs we perform in libraries. + Page 47 + As the impact of library technology has moved from technical functions to reference service functions to campus networks and beyond, the scope of concerns addressed by systems staff have broadened. Experience, research, and reflection upon technological change have resulted in the following important insights: * Effective planning, implementation, and management of public-access systems are enhanced by a multiple perspectives approach. * A matrix reporting structure can be an effective organizational approach to managing staff performing a variety of technical functions. * Staff participation in decisions regarding the structure and nature of technological change improves success rates when implementing change. These insights are not a result of original scholarship, nor are they unique to libraries, but are adapted from other sectors of the economy for application to library organizations. The following are four suggestions which may be helpful to organizations attempting to provide adequate staffing to support public-access computer systems. RECOMMENDATION 1: Create a technology steering committee composed of individuals representing technical, organizational and personal perspectives. The functions of the committee are to include: direction, rationing of computer resources, structuring for effective use of computing facilities, selecting key managers of computing facilities, advising, auditing or evaluating, and planning for future technology. RECOMMENDATION 2: Experiment with the matrix approach combined with the technology steering committee described above. There are specific organizational requirements, whether union or institutional, which must be met for the successful implementation of a matrix reporting structure. The combination of the matrix organizational approach and the technology steering committee can provide a strong cohesive focus to technological management, planning, and development within an organization. + Page 48 + RECOMMENDATION 3: Understanding of human needs, valuing contributions, providing a good work environment and competitive benefits help in retaining staff. A premium can be paid for expertise, but, if the salaries for technical staff get too far out of alignment with other staff, problems arise. Try to train staff in-house to ensure depth of expertise. RECOMMENDATION 4: A coordinated approach to staff training and user education is just as important as a coordinated approach to technological planning, development, and management. Notes 1. Harold A. Linstone, Multiple Perspectives for Decision Making: Bridging the Gap between Analysis and Action (New York: North- Holland, 1984). 2. Ibid, 46-47. 3. Ibid, 48. 4. Ibid, 52. 5. Ibid, 57-61. 6. Richard L. Nolan, "Managing Information Systems by Committee," Harvard Business Review 60 (July-August, 1982): 72-79. 7. Sonia Bodi, "Teaching Effectiveness and Bibliographic Instruction: The Relevance of Learning Styles," College & Research Libraries 51, no. 2 (March, 1990): 113-119. + Page 49 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic journal. It is sent to participants of the Public-Access Computer Systems Forum, a computer conference on BITNET. To join the PACS Forum, send an electronic mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First_Name Last_Name. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. This article is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computerized bulletin board/conference systems, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their collection at no cost. This message must appear on copied material. All commercial use requires permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 50 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Smith, Steve. "A CD-ROM LAN Utilizing the CBIS CD Connection System." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 1, no. 2 (1990): 50-61. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction Like many libraries, the Elmer E. Rasmuson Library of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks has been exploring ways to expand access to the growing number of commercial CD-ROM database products, which are supplementing and replacing traditional print and online reference sources in libraries. Over the past few years, we have increased the number of CD-ROM titles in our collection; however, due to the popularity of these databases, the queues to use them also grew, which resulted in patron frustration. This paper will briefly chronicle our library's implementation of a local area network (LAN), which is primarily used to provide multiple-user access to CD-ROM databases. Background Information The Rasmuson Library is the largest research and academic library in the state of Alaska. Prior to implementing our LAN, we used a variety of CD-ROM databases. As members of the Western Library Network (WLN), we made the LaserCat CD-ROM database available to patrons for several years. We also provided access to the following CD-ROM databases: Dialog's OnDisc ERIC, University Microfilm's ABI/INFORM OnDisc, and Auto-Graphics' Government Documents Catalog Service. All of these databases were accessible at individual workstations. There were several LaserCat workstations. Since we were planning to add a few new CD-ROM products each year, it became apparent that we would quickly run out of room for separate workstations dedicated to single databases. We were beginning to see patrons waiting for access to a workstation--or worse--giving up and leaving. At the same time, we had been discussing the need for a local area network to provide access to several local databases we were developing for our special collections. We also saw the need for a LAN to provide some administrative services, such as scheduling facilities and equipment from multiple locations. + Page 51 + In the spring of 1989, we made the decision to develop a LAN throughout the five floors of the library. Our first use of the LAN would be to provide access to our growing CD-ROM collection. We needed both a LAN operating system and a CD-ROM server. Ethernet was selected as the LAN topology because of its robustness. Having an internal Ethernet would also facilitate the future connection of this LAN to a fiber-optic Ethernet being installed on the campus. Procurement of the CD-ROM LAN Specifications were developed after a survey of available CD-ROM LAN systems. (Meridian, Silver Platter, and LANtastic were the major players). The first request for bids went out, but none of the bidders met our specifications. Some bidders obviously had no idea what was involved in networking CD-ROMs. Others simply didn't include all the components we specified. A second request for bids that had more exact specifications was issued. At the same time, we purchased three Hewlett-Packard (HP) 80386-based microcomputers to use as workstations. HP was chosen simply because of a state contract that allowed us to purchase these units without a time-consuming bid process. The system with the lowest bid that met our specifications was a product developed by CBIS, Inc. of Norcross, Georgia. We purchased a total CBIS package, including their NETBIOS- compatible local area network software (Network-OS), the CD Connection software to run CD-ROM databases over the network, and a CD Server/386 with an 80386 processor. Frankly, we had expected Meridian Data to be the successful bidder. At the time we began looking into CD-ROM networks, CBIS was a new and untested player in the CD-ROM networking marketplace, while the Meridian Data CD Net system had a track record. Initially, we resisted the CBIS bid, which was made by a local vendor. However, as a result of discussions with CBIS sales and technical people, we decided that CBIS was offering a workable system. A cautionary note for anyone entering this arena: the local vendor we purchased the system from had no prior knowledge of CBIS products. Their relationship with CBIS was established when they received our bid. + Page 52 + Technical Support and Documentation In our estimation, the quality of the technical assistance our local vendor provided ranged from poor to nonexistent. At one point, they gave information concerning the system that was simply erroneous. CBIS offers free technical assistance to all registered users; our local vendor wanted to charge by the hour for technical assistance. We have ended up getting telephone support directly from CBIS technical staff. For the most part, we have found CBIS assistance to be prompt and accurate. After several calls, we identified the staff most responsive to our needs. When we call now, we request these staff by name. A few things, like a simple list of CD-ROM products that have successfully run on the CBIS system, took a number of calls and some cajoling to obtain. Part of the problem was that the product was so new that some information has simply not available in a form suitable for customer use. The CD Connection manual didn't provide as much helpful information as we would have liked, especially about trouble shooting. The information was simply not there. We understand that CBIS is working on an updated and expanded manual. The moral of this brief tale is to be wary about who you purchase a CD-ROM LAN system from. In many cases, you will know as much, if not more, than a local vendor. Chances are that, unless CD- ROM LAN activity is high in your area, you will be a local store's only customer. This gives the local vendor little incentive to spend much time training its staff to service the CD-ROM networking product. Even if you deal directly with the manufacturer, networking CD-ROMs remains new enough that complete documentation may not be available. Although CD-ROM LAN systems are proliferating and some installations are several years old, the library community is probably somewhere near the end of the early adopter stage of CD-ROM LAN use. + Page 53 + Network Hardware The hardware for our CD-ROM LAN is fairly straightforward. Table 1 provides specific information about network servers and workstations. We decided to try a mix of workstations to see what hardware gave the best performance at the lowest cost. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. Network Hardware. 1. Network Server. 25 MHz, zero-wait-state, 80386-based microcomputer with 4 MB of memory (1 MB DOS, 1 MB RAMdisk, and 2 MB cache); 1.2 MB, 5 1/4" disk drive; 40 MB hard disk; amber monochrome monitor; dot-matrix printer; and Accton 8-bit Ethernet card. 2. CD-ROM Server. 25 MHz, zero-wait-state, 80386-based microcomputer with 4MB of memory; 1.2 KB, 5 1/4" disk drive; amber monochrome monitor; and 8-bit Western Digital 8003 Ethernet card. 3. Workstations. Four 4.77 MHz, 8088-based microcomputers each with 640 KB of memory; 2 360 KB, 5 1/4" disk drives; 20 MB hard disk; CGA monitor; dot-matrix printer; and 8-bit Accton Ethernet card. Two 12 MHz, 80286-based microcomputers each with 1 MB of memory; 360 KB, 5 1/4" disk drive; 40 MB hard disk; VGA monitor; dot- matrix printer; and 8-bit Accton Ethernet card. Three 20 MHz, 80386-based microcomputers each with 1 MB of memory; 1.2 MB, 5 1/4" disk drive; 1.4 MB, 3.5" disk drive; 40 MB hard disk; VGA monitor; dot-matrix printer; and 8-bit Accton Ethernet card. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Network-OS can operate as a peer-to-peer or dedicated server system. Thus, any node on the network may function as only a workstation, a dedicated server, or a combination server and workstation. Network-OS does not require a dedicated server to run the network; however, response time is so sluggish with a non-dedicated server that trying to save a few dollars this way may negatively affect users' attitudes towards the system, not to mention overall system performance. The CD Connection machine must be a dedicated server. + Page 54 + Our CD Server/386 does not require a hard disk. The server has seven Hitachi CD-ROM drives--the maximum number of CD-ROM drives that can be in the machine. A CD Server/SU tower is attached to the CD Server/386. This unit contains seven more Hitachi CD-ROM drives. At this time, we have eleven of the fourteen drives loaded and operating over the LAN. Since installation in January, we've had to replace one of the Hitachi drives (it was still under warranty). CBIS has recently switched to NEC CD-ROM drives. The CD Server/386 can operate with two extension towers, for an total of 21 CD-ROM drives. Although CBIS assures us we will see no degradation in performance, I remain skeptical that the CD Server/386 can adequately run 21 CD-ROM drives with the same level of performance as when it is running 7 drives. Having run the network for four months with a mix of microcomputer workstations, we can make the following recommendations about minimum workstation hardware for similar CD-ROM LANs. XT-class machines are simply too slow. Up to 30 or 40 seconds can pass while you wait for a database to load. Basic workstation memory (640 KB) is barely adequate for CD-ROM applications on the LAN. Adding extra memory to the XT-class machine is time consuming--XTs were simply not designed with this kind of expansion in mind. A minimum of 1 MB memory is needed for each workstation. Be wary of how that 1 MB is divided up. The 80386-based HP machines we purchased have 1 MB of memory, but the memory above 640 KB is called "reserved" memory. Basically, this means it is reserved for machine-specific functions like the ROM BIOS and video drivers. We are unable to load any application software (like our network menu program) in that memory space. We believe that a minimum workstation configuration is a 12 MHz 80286-based microcomputer with 1 MB memory, a hard drive (40 MB seems to be standard in new machines lately), at least one floppy drive for loading software and giving patrons the option of downloading search results, and a VGA color monitor. When budget permits, our preference is to go with 80386-based workstations. As prices come down on these units, they may become our basic workstation. We prefer VGA color monitors because most CD-ROM databases have wonderful interface screens that look best on VGA monitors. Having a high-resolution screen display can reduce eye fatigue, especially for long CD-ROM sessions. + Page 55 + We feel that having printers available on CD-ROM LAN workstations is also important. Each workstation on our LAN includes a 9-pin, dot-matrix printer. As the number of workstations grows, we may explore sharing a printer among a cluster of three or four stations; however, we feel that having dedicated printers for each workstation is easier for patrons. Although we haven't done a time study, our sense is that dedicated printers reduce the total time that users spend at workstations. Network Software Table 2 gives a summary of the network software we are using to support LAN operations. We also tried Borland's Sprint word processing software, which successfully ran on the network. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2. Network Software 1. CD Connection (CBIS) 2. MSCDEX (Microsoft) 3. Network-OS (CBIS) 4. PC Anywhere (DMA, Inc.) 5. Perfect Menu (International Computer Group) ---------------------------------------------------------------- I've already mentioned that we are running Network-OS, a NETBIOS compatible package, as the LAN operating system. If you are familiar with MS DOS, this is an easy package to install and maintain. However, I don't mean a passing acquaintance with DOS, but an intimate and loving relationship. Fortunately, we have a person on our staff who has such a knowledge of MS DOS. This has made life on the LAN front much easier. We had the network running the same day we installed the Network-OS software. It took a little over a day to install the CD Connection software on two workstations, and about one week to get it fully operational. All this activity was preceded by several days of reviewing the manuals. + Page 56 + It was the small things that slowed us down. For example, the Ethernet cards, which were supplied by CBIS, contained no documentation, and we had to experiment to find out what the cards' configurations should be. A call to CBIS requesting documentation brought no results. When we needed additional Ethernet cards, we went directly to the card manufacturer and purchased the cards at the same price that CBIS had charged us. Each card from the manufacturer came with a manual and diagnostic software. We installed Perfect Menu to use as a network menu system. It provided a good user interface, had good security, and was easy to modify. It could operate in resident or nonresident mode. Nonresident mode is an option if memory is tight, but it really slows down performance as you wait for the software to unload and load before and after you use a CD-ROM database. On 8088-based workstations, operating Perfect Menu in nonresident mode gives you time to get a cup of coffee while the menu comes up. We run the main menu functions off the network server. Perfect Menu provides some useful utilities such as metering, which allows us to limit the number of workstations that can simultaneously access a CD-ROM database. This may prove helpful for CD-ROM vendors whose licenses restrict the number of simultaneous users of their products. We also make use of a timeout feature, which allows us to shut down the network at night and turn it back on the next morning. Perfect Menu also provides some user statistics, such as the total time an application was loaded at a workstation. Currently, we are installing a remote workstation at our Biomedical library, which is about one mile from the main library. We are using the PC Anywhere software to support this workstation. This software allows a remote computer to access the network through any network node that is running a copy of PC Anywhere and has a communications port. Using two LAN drivers, we have connected our Biomedical library workstation via a dedicated line to a LAN workstation in the main library. Essentially, the remote computer will use this LAN workstation as a slave unit. We will also use PC Anywhere as way to provide dial-access to the network. This remote-access arrangement for our Biomedical library is an inelegant solution at best. When a campus-wide fiber optic LAN is installed, we will replace the current remote-access method with a direct connection via the fiber optic LAN. In the meantime, we will experiment with PC Anywhere. + Page 57 + We are deciding whether or not to continue to use the Network-OS operating system. On the positive side, Network-OS, which has an MS DOS base, has been fairly easy to install and maintain. On the negative side, the software doesn't have all the features that a network operating system such as Novell Advanced Netware offers. For example, we had to purchase a separate menu software package (Perfect Menu) to provide a reasonable user interface. Netware comes with a built-in menu utility. There are also inherent memory limitations in an MS DOS environment. My personal preference would be for a UNIX system. However, it is still difficult to use CD-ROM databases with UNIX. Installation of CD-ROM Databases on the Network Loading CD-ROM databases on the network was been done on a case- by-case basis. Some CD-ROM databases worked immediately, some didn't run at all, and others required considerable tinkering before they ran. We often found that claims of compatibility between CD Connection and specific CD-ROM databases were only partially true. For example, we were told that the Cambridge Scientific products would run on the LAN. Indeed they did, but only if the CD-ROM database in question was in the first drive in the server. This was fine--until we had another CD-ROM that also required placement in the first drive. Working with both CBIS and Cambridge, we have finally overcome this limitation, and soon we will be mounting two Cambridge CD-ROMs on the LAN. Table 3 shows the CD-ROM databases that we have tested on the network. Only ABI/INFORM OnDisc has failed to run on the network. + Page 58 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 3. CD-ROMs Tested on the LAN 1. ABI/INFORM OnDisc (UMI) 2. Aquatic Sciences & Fisheries Abstracts (Cambridge Scientific) 3. Government Documents Catalog Service (Auto-Graphics)* 4. LaserCat (WLN)* 5. Life Sciences Collection (Cambridge Scientific) 6. Magazine Index Plus (Infotrac) 7. OnDisc ERIC (Dialog)* 8. Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature (Wilson) * Software currently runs on workstations ---------------------------------------------------------------- University Microfilm's CD-ROM products have been a perplexing problem. I've seen the UMI products running on a LAN; however, none of their CD-ROMs would run on the CBIS system. It was only after we had the LAN operating that UMI and CBIS exchanged software to try to achieve compatibility. This did not seem to be a high priority for either of them, so we call them regularly to remind them of our need. Currently, the UMI CD-ROM databases are still not working with the CBIS system. We have the ABI/INFORM OnDisc CD-ROM locally loaded at one workstation. This workstation has access to all other databases on the LAN, except LaserCat. The LaserCat software conflicts with the UMI software. Providing LAN access to CD-ROMs from different vendors can be challenging. Unless they employ CD-ROMs from different vendors, tests reported in the literature and vendor demonstrations may not give you an accurate picture of CD-ROM network products. What runs well in an single-vendor CD-ROM LAN could cause problems in a multiple-vendor LAN. Part of the problem may stem from the original design of CD-ROMs as single-user products. Some CD-ROM software packages are still not ready for a multiple- user, multiple-product LAN environment. + Page 59 + Of the CD-ROM products we have tried, those by Auto-Graphics (Government Documents Catalog Service), Dialog (OnDisc ERIC), and Infotrac (Magazine Index Plus) have run immediately without problems. Products by WLN (LaserCat), Cambridge Scientific (Life Sciences Collection and Aquatic Sciences & Fisheries Abstracts), and Wilsondisc (Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature) have run after some manipulation on our part and calls to CBIS and the CD- ROM vendor. LaserCat in particular drinks up memory like a thirsty man in Death Valley. Occasionally, parts of the LaserCat program remain in memory after the program has been unloaded, reducing available memory at the workstation. The only way out of this situation is to reboot of the workstation. Our biggest problem with getting CD-ROM products to run on the network has been loading and unloading MSCDEX. Some software packages require MSCDEX on each workstation, others don't. Trying to save as much memory as possible, we don't want anything loaded that doesn't have to be in memory. A few utilities are available to unload MSCDEX automatically, but they also reboot the machine--a condition we don't want on the LAN, particularly if the machine being rebooted is a server. Currently, the only CD-ROM software we run on the network server is the searching software from Cambridge Scientific. We are close to solving the automatic loading and unloading of MSCDEX, but this effort has required intensive work with DOS. Our main approach to CD-ROM vendors is to tell them that a requirement for purchasing or subscribing to their product (or continuing to do so) is that it run on our LAN. While some compatibility problems persist, I believe most of them will be resolved. The larger problem is obtaining CD-ROM LAN licenses. Pricing for these licenses has been all over the board, from no extra charge, to blanket-license fees for x number of workstations, to a per- workstation charge, to doubling the subscription fee (we returned that CD-ROM). Some license agreements extend only to LANs operating within a single building. Some vendors with this restriction have allowed us to include our Biomedical Library. Soon, we will run into problems as we try to extend access to our LAN beyond the confines of our immediate campus. In short, CD-ROM producers are not yet prepared to handle network license agreements for their products. I see licensing as the critical problem facing CD-ROM networking. The rest of the problems are technical issues which, while momentarily vexing, are not unexpected given that this is a new technology. I believe those vendors who do not adapt their products, their fee structures, and their licensing agreements for a network environment will see their market share shrink. + Page 60 + Conclusion We have been satisfied with our excursion into the world of CD- ROM networking. We currently have five public workstations up, a workstation at our reference desk, one in our online searching room, and two in administrative offices. Soon, we will have a remote site at our Biomedical library. Our plans are to expand both the number of workstations and the number of CD-ROM databases. Our current strategy is to add multiple copies of a CD-ROM database if and when demand for that database slows down network performance. We also plan to install a bridge to the campus-wide LAN and a dedicated communications server with multiple dial-up ports. We have already placed an order for another CBIS server. User response has been extremely positive. With little fanfare and minimum help, our patrons appear have taken to the LAN well. We are developing easy-to-use online help screens and integrating the use of the LAN into our Library Skills course. Generally, if a user has no problems utilizing a microcomputer, the user has no problem employing the LAN. The CBIS system we installed has worked fairly well; however, we are fortunate to have experienced technical people on our staff. CD-ROM network systems are not yet turnkey operations. I did not discuss the work involved in installing the LAN itself. We spent as much time installing cable as we did installing software and hardware. CD-ROM producers are only slowly responding to the new world of CD-ROM networking. Their actions will greatly influence how quickly or how slowly libraries progress with CD-ROM networking. Hopefully, we can all work together to make CD-ROM networking a commonplace reality. + Page 61 + About the Author Steve Smith Rasmuson Library University of Alaska at Fairbanks Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 FNSLS@ALASKA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic journal. It is sent to participants of the Public-Access Computer Systems Forum, a computer conference on BITNET. To join the PACS Forum, send an electronic mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First_Name Last_Name. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. This article is copyright (C) 1990 by Steve Smith. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computerized bulletin board/conference systems, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their collection at no cost. This message must appear on copied material. All commercial use requires permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------- + Page 4 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson, Thomas C. "Zen and the Art of CD-ROM Network License Negotiation." The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 1, no. 2 (1990): 4 - 14. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 Introduction Multi-user access is one of the fastest growing areas of the CD-ROM marketplace. Since several library sites have tested the merger of multiple technologies to build such networks, clearly it is technologically possible to provide either in-house or remote networked access to some CD-ROM databases. As with many experiments in library automation, the technological hurdles that must be overcome belong to the first stage of the process and, complicated though they may be, do not represent the totality of the problem. License agreements represent another challenging area in the universe of CD-ROM networking. The first indication of the complexity at hand is the lack of standard methods for initiating, negotiating, or determining such arrangements. Each vendor is likely to produce a unique license agreement and, in some cases, is likely to have different arrangements with each institution, regardless of the similarity of their network environments. CD-ROM network license agreements are also frequently extensions of or riders to existing single-use agreements, not separately designed legal documents. This situation is further complicated by the implied separation of licenses for data and licenses for software. Additionally, some agreements require that the established relationship be held in confidence, thereby limiting customers' ability to learn how others have handled specific licensing dilemmas. It is clear that this segment of the information industry has not fully matured. End-users, network managers, database producers, and product vendors all approach licensing issues from different perspectives. Even within these groups opinions, policies, and procedures vary greatly. It is also the case that none of these groups have a corner on clarity or sensibility. The issues are often fraught with philosophically opposing motivations, but that is not to say that compromises can not be made. This paper will outline several descriptive categories of CD-ROM network license arrangements available in the marketplace at this time and will attempt to examine and clarify some of their pitfalls. + Page 5 + 2.0 Context of CD-ROM License Agreements To establish a context for CD-ROM license agreements, it may be helpful to view them as an outgrowth of two other related types of licenses--commercial microcomputer software licenses (e.g., dBase IV, Lotus 1-2-3, and WordPerfect) and large-scale database licenses (e.g., Current Contents, INSPEC, and Magazine Index). In the former, it is use of the software that is granted under certain stipulations, primarily concerned with the number of users, workstations, or program copies. In the later, similar concerns remain; however, since software is an entirely separate entity that is purchased or leased from another vendor, the primary limitation is on access to or use of data. CD-ROM products represent a combination of software and data. As such, one would expect that the process of licensing would be straightforward in terms of dealing with a single entity (e.g., database producer, vendor, or jobber). Frequently, this is not the case, since the CD-ROM marketplace is filled with a variety of combinations of data gatherers and compilers, software developers and marketers, publishers, and product vendors and jobbers, each with some involvement in the process. It may also be helpful to understand that most current CD-ROM database products are extensions of online files. While there are a growing number of products that followed a different development path (e.g., Microsoft Bookshelf), most of the products of interest to large-scale centralized information centers are and will be databases that have been previously available in some online format or have existed in machine- readable format for other purposes (e.g., preparation for traditional print publishing). The major implication of this developmental history is the role that database producers play in CD-ROM network licensing. The role is somewhat schizophrenic in that, while they certainly want users to gain access to the valuable knowledge stored in their particular databases, database producers also want to recover the cost of producing the databases and, if they are a commercial company, to make a profit. The later economic concern inherently limits CD-ROM networking to customers for whom the cost of access to the data is less than its applied value. + Page 6 + Since distributing data in CD-ROM format may reduce the demand for online access to equivalent files, many database producers are leery of providing broad-based access to CD-ROM products in a local environment, particularly when "local" means a campus-wide LAN with dial-access capability and connections to wide-area networks. By behaving in this manner, database producers frequently present a somewhat inconsistent image to institutions that wish to license CD-ROM products for network access. 3.0 Categories of License Agreements The result of this complex scenario is that a variety of network license arrangements exist in the marketplace. Two general issues are involved in these licenses, restrictions and pricing. 3.1 Restrictions Typically, a CD-ROM network licensing agreement will indicate the legal network location or the legal number of registered users, simultaneous users, or workstations on the network. If the agreement is numerically oriented, the method of measuring these users or workstations may vary, but usually will stipulate the exact number or specify ranges within which the network must operate. 3.1.1 Registered Users Some license agreements identify by name the individuals who are permitted to have access to a particular product. While an arrangement such as this may work in an organizational environment where information needs are clearly and fairly predetermined, most libraries and information centers would find this type of agreement unacceptable since most do not identify users individually in terms of utilizing particular resources. + Page 7 + 3.1.2 Number of Workstations License agreements that limit the number of network workstations are more amenable to standard library practice. It is possible to identify honestly how many workstations have access to a network, provided there is no gateway, bridge, or dial-in access to that network. However, this restriction is problematic for libraries that wish to provide convenient access to clients from homes and offices through dial-in or wide-area network strategies. In many cases, it would be difficult or impossible to count effectively the total number of workstations having access to the network. Furthermore, since the method of counting has financial implications, it does not make sense to assume that every workstation that has access to every resource on the network will use every resource on the network. 3.1.3 Number of Potential Users A variant of limiting the number of workstations on the network is restricting the number of potential users on the network. This number is even more difficult to count than the total number of workstations on an open network. Fortunately, the number of potential users has not been a common restriction with CD-ROM networking. It is found more frequently in mainframe-oriented database license agreements. But it may become an issue with CD- ROM licensing. Aside from the practical impossibility of determining this number, such an approach also confuses potentiality with reality. If faced with this type of restriction, it may be wiser for librarians to seek other databases with more realistic license agreements. + Page 8 + 3.1.4 Simultaneous Users Stipulating the number of simultaneous users of a product is another common CD-ROM network license restriction. Simultaneous use is defined as the use of a specific product at the same time; it is not measured by simultaneous disk access or keyboard activity. If a user enters a CD-ROM product, the user will be counted as one user until the user leaves that product entirely. This method is based on the assumption that, through the network software, access to any given resource can be limited to a set number of simultaneous users. This type of arrangement establishes a maximum number of simultaneous users, regardless of the number of workstations on the network. Restrictions of this sort appear to be approaching a happy medium between identifying specific users on one extreme and paying for universal access on the other. In an arrangement such as this, institutions also retain the freedom to expand the size and nature of a network without the necessity of re-negotiating licensing agreements with each vendor, providing the number of simultaneous users remains the same. 3.1.5 Network Location Some CD-ROM network licensing agreements stipulate a spacial restriction rather than a numeric one. In this category, the licensee may have any number of workstations on the network as long as they all reside in the same physical building and no access is granted beyond the physical building housing the network. This is actually fairly common in CD-ROM network licenses, although it is quite rare for commercial software like Lotus 1-2-3. Frequently, this is an additional stipulation along with one of the other licensing restrictions mentioned above. While this restriction eliminates external access, it does grant high levels of freedom within a given physical space. License agreements with restrictions such as this become more complicated in cases where libraries house computer equipment in separate buildings (e.g., computing centers, branch libraries, and out- buildings). Clearly, this is an area requiring attention in order to make CD-ROM networking a realistic option in many libraries. + Page 9 + 3.1.6 User Affiliation Many single-user CD-ROM license agreements carry a restriction that stipulates that only individuals who are affiliated with the licensing organization may have access to the product. Since libraries rarely require that users identify themselves before using information resources, this license restriction is problematic for both single-user and multi-user settings. Once this situation is expanded to include remote access, the ability to monitor the relationship between user and organization becomes less controllable. 3.2 Pricing Just as the restrictions placed on licensees vary greatly so do the pricing structures for networking CD-ROM databases. In general, there are four categories. 3.2.1 No Additional Fee Some vendors will permit licensees to mount their CD-ROM databases on a local area network without incurring additional cost. Surprisingly, there are several companies that have pursued this pricing scheme. Certainly it does encourage those who can afford to install a LAN to do so using these vendors' products. Usually this type of pricing scheme is married to the physical building restriction mentioned above, effectively limiting the scope of the network while still providing multi- user access. 3.2.2 Base Plus Percentage All CD-ROM databases have a base purchase or subscription fee. To network some products requires an additional charge figured as a percentage of the base fee. These percentages typically range from 50% to 100% (i.e., twice the base price), but they can exceed 100%. The agreement typically stipulates a range for the number of users or workstations. For example, two to ten users or workstations on the network might be charged at base plus 50%, while eleven to twenty users or workstations might be charged at base plus 100%. + Page 10 + 3.2.3 Base Plus Fixed Fee This category is a variant of the previous one. Instead of the additional cost being figured as a percentage of the base, it is a set fee per user or workstation. These users or workstations may be counted in a variety of ways: registered users, simultaneous users, potential users, permitted workstations, or total workstations. For example, if a network permitted five simultaneous uses of a given database, the cost would be base plus five times the additional fee. These fees range from $20 or $30 to several hundred dollars per user or workstation. 3.2.4 Separate Structure In some cases, the pricing structure for CD-ROM network licenses is completely different than the pricing structure for single- user licenses for the same product. The price range for multi- user access is usually significantly higher. 3.3 Combinations of Restrictions in License Agreements Given that there appear to be six categories of restrictions and four pricing schemes, statistically there could be up to twenty- four different combinations of licensing arrangements considering just these two factors. In reality, there are probably even more possibilities, since individual database producers or vendors may include variations on these themes. It is no wonder that the existing CD-ROM networks tend to be limited to relatively few products or multiple products from the same database producer or vendor. Implementing a larger LAN that provides access to a wide array of CD-ROM resources may require difficult negotiations and may result in a myriad of agreements, each with its own unique limitations. + Page 11 + 4.0 The University of Houston Libraries' Experience As part of the University of Houston Libraries' Intelligent Reference Information System (IRIS) Project [1], library staff investigated the network licensing policies of numerous CD-ROM vendors. In 1989, the University of Houston Libraries were awarded a $99,852 Research and Demonstration Grant from the U.S. Department of Education's College Library Technology and Cooperation Grants Program to develop and study a prototype IRIS system that combines expert system and CD-ROM network technologies (federal funds will pay for 51% of the estimated costs of project). Between December 1989 and January 1990, twenty-one database producers or vendors, representing fifty-three databases, were contacted for license information. Two of the 53 databases were not available for networking at the time of this survey. One of these is now available for network licensing on a case-by-case basis through an interim policy. Table 1 indicates how these databases fit into the restriction categories and pricing schemes mentioned above. The numbers represent databases, not producers or vendors, since licensing agreements vary from database to database, even from the same producer or vendor. The total is more than the number of databases represented because some producers and vendors offer more than one networking option and some have multiple restrictions. Given the University of Houston Libraries' single- building network environment, license restrictions based on the number of potential users were not relevant, and they are not included in Table 1. + Page 12 + ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. CD-ROM License Restrictions and Pricing PRICING RESTRICTIONS Reg. # of Simul. Net. User User Wks. Users Loc. Affil. No Fee 0 0 0 25 21 Base + % 0 12 2 15 15 Base + Fee 2 2 5 0 6 Separate 0 4 0 3 2 Total 2 18 7 43 44 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5.0 Conclusion Out of this rather complicated matrix, is there one clear option that could serve in all situations? Probably not! In fact, it is the existence of options in the marketplace that suggests that different libraries and database producers have different needs and desires. Having a variety of combinations of restrictions and pricing schemes permits more libraries to consider CD-ROM networks than if there were only one solution. However, the variety occurs at the global level (i.e., as one considers all vendors and producers). If any single vendor or producer is examined, the results are likely to include one or, at most, two options. + Page 13 + Despite the already complex nature of CD-ROM licensing agreements, more flexibility is needed from producers and vendors. For libraries to buy into networking arrangements, database producers and vendors must not view libraries as one monolithic entity. What works in one instance will not work in another. It would be helpful to have several options from each vendor or producer to create solutions that are truly effective. Restrictions and pricing schemes are necessary components of the symbiotic commercial relationship between database producers and libraries, but alternatives that facilitate the operational management of LANs are more likely to succeed. Short of this end, CD-ROM networking will remain limited in scope, not necessarily because of the cost entailed, but rather because of the difficulty in managing multiple resources with unique and binding license restrictions. Notes 1. Charles W. Bailey, Jr. and Kathleen Gunning, "The Intelligent Reference Information System: An Expert System to Select Networked CD-ROM Databases and Other Reference Resources," CD-ROM Librarian 5 (September 1990), forthcoming. + Page 14 + About the Author Thomas C. Wilson Coordinator of Computerized Information Retrieval Services University Libraries University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-2091 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic journal. It is sent to participants of the Public-Access Computer Systems Forum, a computer conference on BITNET. To join the PACS Forum, send an electronic mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 that says: SUBSCRIBE PACS-L First_Name Last_Name. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is copyright (C) 1990 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All rights reserved. This article is copyright (C) 1990 by Thomas C. Wilson. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by computerized bulletin board/conference systems, individual scholars, and libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their collections at no cost. This message must appear on copied material. All commercial use requires permission. ----------------------------------------------------------------