NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/bit/listserv/cdromlan/1664

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-10 | 17.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!VAXB.ACS.UNT.EDU!FB23
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cdromlan
Subject: Re: Computer staff vs. librarians
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:49:30 GMT
Sender: "CDROMLAN@IDBSU - Use of CDROM Products in Lan Environments"
              <[e-mail]>
Lines: 282
Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
X-VMS-To: IN%"[e-mail]"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

RE: ONE LAST SHOT AT A HOT TOPIC

[A part of this note was sent by mistake last week.  Here it is in full.]

I sent the opening shot in the recent "Librarians vs. Library Technicians"
discussion.  I then promptly left town to attend a conference, and, hence,
missed out on a lot of the fun.  I would like to take the opportunity to
make a summarized answer to all of the people who got involved in the
discussion.

First, to those who questioned the validiity of discussing the topic (personnel
and management issues involved in managing CDROM and microcomputer-based
information systems) on this list, and to the one person who complained about
the discussion appearing on CDROMLAN, I would like to ask, "where better"?
As our systems become more complex and mission critical, management issues
such as this will become more pressing and more common.  Do we need a separate
LISTSERV for PC/CDROM technical questions and another for PC/CDROM system
management questions?  I think not.  If a given "thread" is uninteresting,
users can simply list their messages and delete those which appear to be
from the offending thread.

Now to the meat of the matter.  The initial discussion started from my dismay
at once again reading of networked CD-ROM systems being placed in semi-public
places and maintained, rebooted and "managed" by large groups of untrained
staff.

The first wave of library automation took place on mainframes and
 minicomputers.Systems management models were taken from those existing in
 industry.
Centralization was necessary due to the complexity of the systems.  The
complexity and importance of the systems also dictated the use of trained
staffs of COMPUTER TECHNICIANS.  Even if the system was a "fully turnkey"
system, someone had to be there locally, either on the Library's or the
Computing Center's staff, to tend the machines.  The post of Systems Librarian
was created to provide the necessary librarian's perspective and overview
necessary to create systems which would fulfill the library's expectations and
needs and to provide a gateway between other librarians and the computer
pros tending the machines.  Note that the Systems Librarian is a hybrid
professional, at his/her best, a LIBRARIAN with a very heavy grounding in
computer technology, or a COMPUTER PROFESSIONAL with a very heavy grounding
in librarianship.  The Systems Librarian becomes a specialized librarian and
is not usually a reference/circ/techserv librarian working part-time with the
online system.  Note also that very few libraries allow untrained staff full
manager's access to their mainframe/minicomputer systems or full access to
their mainframe/mini hardware installations.

With the second wave of library automation, that involving PCs, we, as well as
industry in general, were without models.  The PC was made to provide a
radical decentralization, both in control and capability.  The whole purpose
of the thing was to provide the individual user with independent computing
capabilities.  There was very little attempt at "management" of this resource
as a single entity.  Libraries brought the little boxes in piecemeal and let
the staff have at 'em.  As a result, many people became enamored of the PC,
and became "hobbyists" during working hours.  This is not to belittle those
people.  Many of these "hobbyists" went on to become "power users", and
later, PC systems managers.

With the third wave, PCs have been incorporated into networks and we have
a melding of waves one and two.  We have the need to manage our PC resources
(and CDROM networks, LANs, shared peripherals, etc.) in a centralized manner,
and yet we have the individual control and capabilities springing from the
availability of a complete computer system at the desktop.  Unfortunately,
we also have the legacy of the view of the PC as a desktop "toy" in the total
control of the user.  Also, since little was done to manage them when most
computing was done standalone, we are left with amateurish outlooks on
management as PCs are combined into systems.  There are two aspects to the
problem, BOTH OF WHICH ARE OF EXTREME IMPORTANCE TO THOSE OF US BUILDING,
MANAGING AND MAINTAINING INFORMATION SYSTEMS OF WHICH PCS, CDROM NETWORKS
AND LANS ARE A PART:

1.  Professionalism:  As the systems become more complex, more mission
critical and more INTERCONNECTED, it will be increasingly important to
have technically fluent staff.  NOT hobbyists, but rather, technicians.
Many of these people will either start out as general librarians or will
start out as technicians who later obtain library degrees.  The point here
is that these people will look at themselves as technical specialists and
will take the responsibility of building and maintaining skills in their
chosen area.  They will NOT be people who find PC technology as simply a
fun and diverting way to add interest to their current jobs.  In short,
we are looking at the development of another, specialized "brand" of
systems librarians, dealing with micro-based systems.

I, myself, started as a computer professional working within libraries.  I
had some background in librarianship (work as a paraprofessional within a
tech services unit at one time, ownership of a small library software company),
but not MLS.  However, while working in my present position, I found that
the lack of the Library degree was hurting me in several ways, among which
were:

   a.  Lack of credibility among librarians (someone out there mentioned
       that they felt that librarians grab onto the MLS as proof of
       membership in a special fraternity due to the lack of perceived
       appreciation of the field from outside--I would agree).

   b.  The need to tie together many of the smatterings of info and
       viewpoints that I had acquired through my experience on the
       periphery of librarianship to better focus my efforts in the
       development and management of library info systems.

Accordingly, I obtained an MS IS (MS in Info Science--a degree similar to,
but somewhat different, from the MLS) and am now a Librarian/Computer
Professional.  For those who wrote that they manage library computer systems
but lack the MLS/MIS, I would heartily recommend that you get the degree if
you plan to continue to work within libraries.  No, it won't guarantee that
you are a top flight computer professional, but it will give you added insight
into the needs and perceptions of librarians, will increase your credibility
and status within the field of librarianship, and will make you a specialist
within the wide fields of computer science and librarianship.

Incidentally, to the MLS student from SUNY at Buffalo who wrote about the
lack of computer emphasis in most MLS (as well as the supposedly more
technical MIS) programs, I heartily concur.  Many of the MLS students that
I run across are nearly computer illiterate (almost computer phobic) even
at this late date.  Some are openly hostile [The shock of my life came when
a group of LS students attacked the concept of Internet E-mail, and
particularly the LISTSERVs, as being destructive to interpersonal relations
between members of the profession--it wasn't face to face and therefor
was not "real" contact.]

The practical computer coursework is generally little, voluntary and not up
to the state of the art of the computer field.  I will go out on a limb and
state that there is no way that someone could acquire the knowledge necessary
to become a systems librarian through an MLS/MIS program alone.  The successful
librarian/computer professional will be either a computer pro who gets the
MLS/MIS, or a librarian who gets the computer background from outside
coursework or experience and puts in the necessary effort.

Also, (this one should get me fried by some people out there!) I think that
micro-based "Systems Librarians" are a different animal than the traditional
Systems Librarian that works with the OPAC.  Priorities are different, there
are prejudices in expectations of the platform, and the focus of the OPAC
Systems Librarian is usually "OPAC-Centric", that is, the OPAC is the
cornerstone upon which the electronic library is to be based, whereas those
of us who come from a PC background tend to look at the OPAC as being but
one of many information resources, one source among many peers, and base
our systems on mixtures of CD-ROMs, fileserver-based products, Internet
databases, and things mounted on our OPACs.

Back to the need for more "computer pros" and fewer "techie librarians".  I
find it striking that Librarians, who for years have been decrying the use
of non-degreed, "non-qualified" dilettantes, performing "work best performed
by professionals", put up a fuss when it is suggested that PC/CD-ROM/LAN
system management has come to the point that it really needs to be handled
by trained, dedicated computer professionals (whether librarians or non-
librarians).

Yes, librarians need technical training.  If they don't receive it, the
profession will be bypassed as we increasingly turn to providing information
electronically.  But technical training is a relative thing.  The emerging
information system calls for a mix of specialists and generalists, working
as a team, to get the job done (as we already do with separate cataloging
/reference/circ/systems departments).

The question of training and complementary function is at the heart of the
matter.  As one other person pointed out, those of us who manage and build
the systems are not necessarily experts at their usage.  I am comfortable
with, but not an expert at, searching databases.  There are other trained
professional librarians who specialize in that field.  I am not an expert
in all of the aspects of design of Acquisitions systems.  We have an
Acquisitions staff to provide the input necessary for my unit to come up
with functional system designs.  We have reference librariens to provide
collection development decisions as to new CD-ROM products to acquire.  Once
these people select a product, I evaluate it to determine the technical
feasibility of networking it, standalone installation, etc.  However,
I DO NOT make the traditional librarian's decision as to the value of the
product or its content.  That is a decision best left to the APPROPRIATE
TRAINED PROFESSIONAL.

On the other hand, it the purest folly for a non-systems librarian (cataloger,
or whatever), to think that he/she can keep up with PC/CDROM/Networking
technology sufficiently to be heavily involved in the operation of an
extensive library PC automated system.  This is my full time job, and I find
it difficult to keep up.  In a small institution where people need to wear
many hats, you may have no choice.  Where specialization is possible, hire
specialists, or make up your mind to switch specialties and become a full time
automation librarian, not merely a "Cataloger Who Likes to Play with PCs"
or a "Reference Librarian Who Thinks that CD-ROM Networking Technology is
Keen".

The point here is that, yes, the AVERAGE librarian needs to know how to
operate a computer terminal or PC and needs to know some basics, such
as how to format a diskette; no, they should not all be fully trained in
the nitty-gritty details of what goes on in the background.  It is
perfectly possibly for a reference librarian to help a student download
data to a diskette or network directory without understanding "elevator
seeking" or "head thrashing".  In addition, if PC system managers have
locked everything down as tightly as prudent management practice
dictates, there will be very little opportunity for PC "power-librarians"
to display the sort of extra-curricular computer smarts that at least
one person mentioned.

As another illustration, part of my unit's function is to work with other
units in determining the best way to meet their needs via automation.  Our
librarians work with my people on the task side (i.e., "We need to print
such-and-such a form on this particular type of multi-part form"), not on
the system design side (i.e., "Buy us a Smith and Wesson model XKP-9283
24 pin dot matrix printer with attached tractor feed device so that we
can print these forms").  They tell us what they need to do, we spec the
equipment and help them in determining how to use it.  This is a good
example of trained professionals from different disciplines working together
toward a single goal.

The final point is that of overall PC/CD-ROM system management techniques.
When you have a small CD-ROM network, small Novell network, etc., serving
a very small number of users, perhaps all in a single room, you can get
away with allowing any and all untrained staff members to shuffle discs at
will, reboot whenever it seems like it needs it, reset meters at will, etc.
You may feel comfortable placing the file server and CD-ROM servers in a
public area and giving system manager (SUPERVISOR) equivalence to multiple
people.  If you have a couple of administrative users on your network, you
may also feel fine letting them have at their own system configurations,
spec wildly varying equipment types, etc.

The danger in all of this comes when the system grows and becomes more
important to the operation of the organization.  Ignoring the SOUND PRINCIPLES
OF PC/NETWORK SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, as you are if you are running your system
as described in the preceeding paragraph, will not provide a secure, reliable
system over the long haul.  Having many "amateur managers" instead of a
qualified individual(s) will cause many headaches.  Allowing reference staff
to reboot CDROM servers is fine when all workstations are in a single room,
If they reboot one by mistake and knock some people off, what's the harm?  But,
what happens when you have users at remote sites, or at large numbers of
public access workstations?

For these reasons, we lock our CD-Servers and file servers in a server room
(in the Libraries!!) to which only my staff have access.  Workstation
configurations are nailed down.  Supervisory access to the file server and
associated resources is reserved to myself and my assistants.

The conclusions to all of the above fluff:

1.  Both "techie librarians" and computer professionals are needed in libraries.
    As interested parties and system users, Techie Libs need to learn enough
    to fully make use of systems, to assist patrons and to communicate needs
    to systems people.  If they desire to manage and develop systems, work
    needs to be spent to acquire the necessary skills and a decision has to
    be made to change the area of professional specialization just as a
    cataloger takes special courses and expends effort to keep up with the
    field in order to be taken seriously as a professional catalog librarian.

    Non-librarian computer professionals should devlop library-specific
    knowledge and should get the professional degree if they intend to
    manage systems in libraries on a long term basis.

2.  Librarian (or paraprofessional) "PC-Hobbyists" or other semi-/unskilled
    staff PC enthusiasts (dilettantes) can do great damage to systems and
    should not be involved in the day-to-day management of mission-critical
    PC/LAN/CDROM systems.

3.  Proper PC-system management techniques should be followed when setting
    up and operating our systems.  Starting out on the wrong foot (putting
    servers in unprotected areas, allowing large numbers of people to reset
    systems, etc.) will cause problems later when the need to tighten-up
    becomes apparent, and can make the system unreliable enough that important
    credibility is lost, making it impossible for the system to every live
    up to its full potential.

    If a library is small enough that it cannot hire appropriate professionals,
    then a staff member with some PC knowledge and "talent" should be
    identified and put in charge of the system.  Outside training should
    be purchased.  The employee should be encouraged to keep up with trends
    in the industry and should be encouraged to think of him/herself as a
    systems-oriented employee.  Professional-quality management of the system
    should be the goal from the time that the system is started.

Whew!!  I know that this is long-winded, however the amount of response to
the original message indicated that there is interest in the subject of
management of our systems (as well as a few raw nerves!).  Again, I apologize
for the lag between the original discussion and this reply, but, ...

I hope that the above is helpful and look forward to receiving comments, rocks,
broken bottles, etc.

Arne J. Almquist
Assistant to the Director of Libraries for
Networking and Microcomputer Resources
University of N. Texas--Libraries
P.O. Box 5188
Denton, TX  76203-0188

ph. 817/565-3278
Bitnet: FB23@UNTVAX