From: John Celli
To: Eugene Schwartz
Subject: Response to ForeWord letter

Dear Gene:

 

Maybe you are right and the library of tomorrow will spring from the initiatives of one of our public or academic libraries.  But I think it's unlikely that we will see major innovation from the bigger institutions.  Size per se does not incapacitate innovation.  In the private sector, big firms produce break out products.  But these large firms have the resources to invest in innovation and generally have significant R&D units.  This is not the case with large libraries.  They have declining budgets and are more inclined to focus on cost savings than innovation. And when they do launch a new initiative, it's generally ove! r burdened with committee planning and documentation. 

 

The smaller or medium size libraries probably stand a better chance of creating a new concept of librarianship.  They are also experiencing budgetary constraints, but are generally encumbered with less bureaucracy and consequently may be more agile.  Ohio State University was the seed bed for OCLC--not the Widener Library, not the Library of Congress.  In the private sector, some of the most innovative technologies were developed in small shops and non-shops by people charged with excitement about some loony idea.  Driven by compulsion, they just tried things, and as they did, they learned, evolved their ideas, and, bingo, finally got it right.  

 

But, big or small, I don't see anything really innovative coming out of any libraries.  Like you I have recently had chance to visit a number of new and upgraded libraries.  The libraries I have visited are in Vietnam where I am currently traveling, but your summary of observations of U.S. libraries lines up with what I have seen in Vietnam

--glassed walled conference rooms, shelving for audio and video media, books (though in Vietnam much fewer in number than in U.S. libraries) and comfortable reading area and, I would add, lots of terminals and wi-fi connectivity.  But none of this constitutes a library renaissance.   Despite the well thought out space, the nice

light, the comfortable seating, ample automation, and Internet access, this does not constitute a leap into the future.

 

Invariably when we think of building a new library or upgrading an old library, we think of constructing or upgrading a library building, and as soon as we do that, we have shackled ourselves to 19th century thinking. Why a building?  Because we need some place to put the books.  Why the books?  Because the books contain the information and creativity that the user wants.  But what if the content is not contained in a physical medium?  What if much, if not most, content is electronic, then what?  

 

I am not saying that we don't need buildings.  But I am saying that we have for much of our history correlated libraries with library buildings because of the dominance of books.  From time to time we have tried to democratize the way we treat the various media in our collections, but this has resulted mainly in changes to cataloging rules--not a matrix shift in thinking--not a genuine recognition that we are in the content business, not the container business. 

 

More and more content will be electronic.  I think this is obvious to all of us.  Consequently, when we build new libraries we would do well to think first of the library as an electronic platform rather than a building. If we start with this premise, we are more likely to rethink our concept of library service and to consider notions like a "push" service or a PBS model and so much more.  The library of the future is neither a Carnegie like monumental temple of knowledge nor a sleek glass and steel testament to modernity.  The library of the future is a cluster of automation equipment, applications, and connectivity designed to generate products and services that meet the information and entertainment needs of t! he community.  

 

Once we rethink the library as first and foremost an electronic platform then the other important elements, like the building --its use, its design, size, perhaps, too, its location, can be reconceptualzed--and, very likely, reconceptualized in ways vastly different than our 19th century thinking allows us to contemplate today.   

 

Best wishes,

John