[Versió catalana], [Versión castellana]


Lluís M. Anglada i de Ferrer

Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya

langlada@cbuc.es

Translation by Alan Lounds




Abstract [Resum] [Resumen]

This article presents the history of library automation in Catalonia from its beginnings to the present, describing the evolution of trends in this field and their application in this autonomous community. It considers the challenge faced by institutions in deciding what software to use for library automation, from the first ‘in-house’ library automation systems in the 1980s to the ‘turnkey’ packages that are currently used. It then discusses the setting up of the Union Catalogue of the Universities of Catalonia (CCUC). Finally, it reviews the current trends in library automation worldwide, and describes the joint call for tenders for the purchase of an automated system for all the libraries of Catalonia, led by the Consortium of Academic Libraries of Catalonia (CBUC).


1 The beginnings: the 1980s

The history of library automation in Catalonia, and particularly in university libraries, goes back to experiences in the 1980s1 that are poorly documented. There are two good reviews of the situation in Catalonia,2 but they both deal with the 1990s. Only partial and incomplete traces remain of the early experiences of automation, when it was known as computerization or even mechanization. We believe that, 25 years later, an effort should be made to improve the documentation of a phenomenon that was the driving force for the modernization of library services in Catalonia.

The first experience of automation was carried out jointly by three institutions: the Technical University of Barcelona (now the Technical University of Catalonia, UPC), the University of Barcelona (UB) and La Caixa de Pensions per a la Vellesa i d’Estalvis de Catalunya i Balears.3 These institutions signed an agreement on 14 July 1978 to create the Library Mechanization Centre (CMBIB). Each institution placed its staff at the service of the project, but the specific contributions were the management staff of UPC’s Computing Centre (CCUPB), UB’s Provincial and University Library and the computer equipment and premises provided by La Caixa. The computerization began in January 1979 at the Provincial Library and shortly afterwards in the libraries of two schools of UPC. The objective was ambitious and modern: “to carry out a project of mechanization of the main libraries of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands in order to create a general catalogue of all the bibliographic news of the region and to distribute it in an accessible format to all the libraries participating in the project”.4

The initiative was finalized in 1981,5 and the automation program followed three paths. At La Caixa the automation started in 1981 and the program was in operation without major modifications until 2000, the last year in which this organization had libraries directly open to the public.6 The Technical University began to automate its libraries in 1983 with the program that was given the name Library Mechanization of the Technical University (MBUP). This was modified in 1986, among other reasons to adapt it to the CATMARC format, and it was renamed the Technical University Documentation Module (MDUP).7 The MDUP was used to automate the UPC’s 14 libraries and a version for PCs was in operation in some libraries of Catalonia until the early 1990s. These experiences have not been documented in the professional literature.

In contrast, there are written accounts of the experience of the University of Barcelona. Cabo i Jansà8 write that in early 1983 UB considered creating a computerized union catalogue for the University. The software options studied were the programs DOBIS/LIBIS, SIBIL and SABINI, the first two created by universities and the third by a Spanish company. However, adopting any of these programs “made it necessary to face serious computer environment problems at the Computing Centre of the University”.9 The authors also mention the need and desire for the program to use the UKMARC format, which was then adopted as an exchange format by the Catalan Bibliography Institute. IN 1984 UB developed its own program, which came into operation in 1985 and was later called BUBIS. The evolution and subsequent development of the program are described by Bonsón et al.10

Here one must mention the automation of the Library Service of the Generalitat (the autonomous government of Catalonia), which was initially related to the above experiences.11 The program developed here was called the Information System for Automated Library Catalogues (SICAB). The origins of SICAB go back to the automated management of the National Bibliography of Catalonia drawn up by the Catalan Bibliography Institute (ICB) in 1981,12 but it soon extended its services to include the automation of public libraries of the Generalitat and the drawing up of the bibliographic heritage catalogue.13

We are fortunate to have the data gathered by the College of Librarians-Documentalists of Catalonia in 1986 on the libraries that were automated or undergoing automation in Catalonia.14 The College distributed a questionnaire to 200 centers, from which 38 replies were received. The survey distinguished between systems (i.e. groups of libraries), automated libraries, libraries undergoing automation and libraries with plans for automation.

All the automated systems (those of the three universities existing at the time in Catalonia, that of La Caixa and that of the Department of Culture of the Generalitat) used their own programs. Eight15 of the automated libraries used their own programs and three used commercial programs. Eight more claimed to be ‘undergoing automation’, two with their own programs, two more with purchased programs, and the rest failed to specify the program. There were nine more libraries with plans for automation,16 eight of which did not state the program they would use and one stated that it would be purchased. These figures show that the 1980s was a decade of in-house library automation.17


2 A change of orientation in the late 1980s

In his study of the situation in 1992, Busquets states: “... during the period 1990–91 the number of services or centers implementing automated services gradually increased. The number of automated institutions tripled. According to all the signs, the figure will continue to increase. One of the current features is the tendency to buy tried and tested commercial systems or ones that have been recently implemented with success in other countries”.18 Indeed, in the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a definitive change in tendency from in-house to turnkey systems in public, university and specialized libraries, leading to the increase in automated libraries noted by Busquets.

An issue of Item devoted to this topic presented three experiences of selecting commercial turnkey systems:19 lthat of the Network of Public Libraries of the Barcelona Provincial Council,20 that of the ESADE Library21 and that of the UPC libraries.22 Buxó stated that the reasons for not developing in-house systems23 were that it required a great deal of human resources, the period of development for the automation was greater than desired and the development costs were believed to be very high. He also states three reasons for choosing a turnkey package:

Cost, time and constant improvements are the reasons put forward in the professional literature of the time for choosing between commercial and in-house systems.25 The article on the selection of software at UPC explains briefly and clearly why it was decided not to develop an in-house system: “it was considered to be the slowest, most expensive and least secure option”.26 After twenty years of experience in library automation, the tendency to use commercial turnkey systems (in reference to a car purchase when the handing over of the keys allows the buyer full use of the vehicle) had proven to be predominant.

This tendency was clear in the United States. The “Automated System Marketplace” in the Library Journal in 1988,27 for example, lists twenty products distributed by 52 vendors. New software had been installed in over 100 facilities in the US and 472 facilities outside the US. The market ‘has grown and matured, is healthy and strong”.28 A similar situation was observed in the United Kingdom, where 11 systems commercial were available in 1988 and 15 in 1990 and (cooperative) in-house systems had given way to the wide use of commercial systems.29 There were 613 automated libraries with these systems (289 were large library systems and 334 small library systems).

The reasons why this clear tendency was not observed earlier in our country are explained in an internal study commissioned in 1987 by the Barcelona Provincial Council in the preliminary stage of the automation of its network of libraries. It stated several times that neither in Catalonia nor in Spain were there sufficient commercial programs available at that time to make a good choice.30, 31 The study recommended buying one of the commercial programs that were then available, MDUP, and preparing to make a more mature decision two or three years later, when the range of products would be wider—as proved to be the case.

Several elements can be observed in the three cases of selection of systems that have been documented. Firstly, the market already offered Spanish libraries many systems to choose from. ESADE studied nine (five of which were international), seven answered the call for tenders of the Barcelona Provincial Council (all international) and UPC examined seven (all international). Secondly, only the Provincial Council made a call for tenders, whereas the other two considered offers on the basis of requirements. The call for tenders by the Provincial Council included an exhaustive list of elements of evaluation, as the professional literature of the period recommended. Finally, in all three cases great importance was given to factors that a few years later were of little concern: hardware, local support, network connectivity and implementation in stages.

These processes commenced in 1987 (ESADE), 1988 (Barcelona Provincial Council) and 1989 (UPC) and terminated in 1988,32 1989 and 1990 respectively. Again according to Busquets, the situation in 1992 indicated a clear change of orientation. In addition to the system selected by the Network of Public Libraries of the Barcelona Provincial Council, other libraries of this type used commercial systems: those of the Generalitat (TINLIB) and two of the three public provincial libraries (ABSYS). The specialized libraries used different types of commercial software: 2 ABSYS, 3 ALEPH, 14 DATA TREK, 10 MDUP, 4 SABINI, 5 TINLIB and 2 VTLS. Meanwhile, the option of in-house software development was represented by a few highly qualified users. This was the case of the Generalitat for the National Library, the Sound Recordings Library and the Periodicals Library of Catalonia and for 7 libraries belonging to other areas of the autonomous government, the University of Barcelona, the system of the network of public libraries of the La Caixa Foundation, and the five libraries of the College of Architects of Catalonia.


3 The advances of the 1990s

The 1990s were characterized by two trends: the generalized introduction of automation in an increasing number of facilities, and an increase in cooperation. The first stage in the selection process at UPC was to hold “frequent but informal contacts with the Autonomous University of Barcelona”. These contacts led to a closer relationship and the two universities finally carried out a parallel selection process.33 Three reasons were put forward for this approach: choosing the same software facilitated the interconnection of the two libraries (though this was not an essential requirement), it enabled them to obtain better economic terms, and the joint purchase would facilitate the implementation process. In the final stage three software packages—GEAC, LIBERTAS and VTLS—were selected and the system chosen was VTLS, the same one chosen one year earlier by the public libraries of the Network of the Barcelona Provincial Council.

In the early 1990s, five new public universities were established in Catalonia and their newly-created library services required automation. Between 1990 and 1995 all eight public universities were automated with VTLS. The same decision was taken by the Library of Catalonia (1995) and the Network of Public Libraries of the Generalitat of Catalonia (1996). The main libraries and networks were therefore now using the same system.

The concentration of software packages—“which is not very common unless it is planned and managed by a higher body”—34 may seem to be an unusual phenomenon. However, it has a simple explanation. During the previous decade library automation had been held back because the in-house options had consumed many resources and given unsatisfactory results, and furthermore showed little prospects for development. In their desire to make up for lost time, the libraries made the pragmatic decision to choose a tried and tested package that that had allowed libraries to set up their automation processes rapidly.

During the implementation between 1990 and 1991, the close relations between the first libraries using VTLS—the Barcelona Provincial Council and the Autonomous, Technical and Pompeu Fabra Universities—led them to carry out a collective project: the interconnection of their catalogues as the first step towards setting up a Union Catalogue. A grant for the project was requested from the Department of Education of the Generalitat, which was then responsible for universities. The Department applied for a grant for the project from the Spanish Ministry of Education and a joint subsidy was provided by the Generalitat and the Ministry. Unfortunately, however, the Department of Education excluded from the subsidy the libraries of the Provincial Council and demanded that it should also be used for the interconnection of the other universities of Catalonia.

The interconnection of the catalogues became a reality in 1994, but the limitations and the need to create a Union Catalogue were soon seen. The steps toward creating the Union Catalogue of the Universities of Catalonia (Catàleg col·lectiu de les universitats de Catalunya, CCUC) began at an organizational and political level in 1994 and at a technical level in 1995. The CCUC came into operation in early 1996. The desire to carry out cooperative projects in addition to the CCUC and the need to recruit technical staff to maintain the catalogue led to the formalization of this cooperation in the form of a consortium.35 This was the origin of the Consortium of Academic Libraries of Catalonia (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitàries de Catalunya, CBUC).

Since then, the CBUC and the CCUC have had a decisive influence on the automation of the libraries of Catalonia. Though they are called the consortium and catalogue of universities, they have encouraged Catalan libraries of other institutions to incorporate their records in the CCUC, which offers two advantages: it makes the catalogue more useful for users because it includes documents of a greater number of libraries, and it makes cataloguing cheaper because of the copying of records.36 The CCUC has also been a platform for other cooperative projects such as consortial library loans, the Digital Library of Catalonia and the RACO and Recercat electronic repositories.

The decision to use a turnkey system proved to be effective. A study carried out in 199137 shows, for example, that the three Catalan universities that already used it had placed all the modules in operation. At that time in Spain there were only two other universities with the loan module and three with the journal control module in operation. The progress can also be seen in the figures provided by a study carried out in 1998.38 Most of the large systems that took the decision to use VTLS had all the modules of the system in use and their catalogues were 100% automated in six cases.

The use of commercial systems became more widespread. According to the cited study, in Catalonia there were 38 libraries using Data Trek, 17 using Manegadoc, 11 using Micro-VTS, 10 using TinLib and 20 using VTLS. This was a major leap forward in comparison with the situation twelve years earlier described in the survey of the Association of Librarians and Documentalists of Catalonia, and the situation only six years earlier described in the study by Busquets. In the 1990s many Catalan libraries were modernized through the complete automation of their functions and services—a process that had been carried out in the US and other pioneering countries in the 1980s.


4 Libraries at the turn of the century

In recent years there has been a specter of obsolescence and disappearance hanging over libraries. Despite the obstacles to their survival, they have been renewed and continue to be public facilities that are appreciated and highly valued by citizens.39 They could not have continued to enjoy this appreciation without a profound modernization of their services and constant adaptation to a changing environment.

The driving force behind this change is automation, which has been an instrument of change in itself that has allowed libraries to reorganize, increase the professional competence of their staff and orient their services towards satisfying the needs of their users.

At the turn of the century societies have experienced radical and profound changes, many of which have affected libraries. Perhaps the four most important of these are the increase in information, the tendency to base service on self-service, the emergence of electronic information and the demand for greater efficiency in public services. All the libraries in Catalonia have provided suitable—but not always sufficient—responses to these changes.

Since the 1960s there has been an unprecedented increase in the amount of and importance of the information that is available—so much so that we are now said to form part of the information society. Libraries have adapted fairly well to this explosion of information. They have changed from a model in which each library tried to have everything to a model in which all libraries act as a network and pool their resources to offer users what they demand, even if it is not in the node of the network from which they make the request. The market has also generated (and the libraries have created this market) databases and other secondary information resources that help to make choices in this universe that is increasingly loaded with information.

The services of our daily life have been mechanized and consumers are becoming increasingly accustomed to self-service. Libraries have also adapted to this evolution and the services they offer have developed from being highly mediated (with the libraries between the information and the users) to being unmediated. Libraries are organizing themselves to provide free access to their services, either inside the library walls or remotely. Libraries have been pioneers in offering information through the computer network with OPACs, and today they continue to do so by providing remote services through the telephone, e-mail and the Internet.

There has been an emergence of electronic information in different forms, and the libraries have responded to it fairly well. First there were databases, then the world-wide web, electronic journals, and e-books. All these new media are present in libraries (a little less than would be desired in Catalonia, except in university libraries) and the libraries are continually incorporating digital information in their services.

Finally, society is making strong demands for greater efficiency in public services. Libraries have learnt in recent years to manage themselves better, to evaluate themselves and to offer user-orientation in order to show the citizens who support them that they make good use of the public resources they receive. They are also taking good advantage of the possibilities offered by technology to work in collaboration. Library cooperation has increased everywhere, leading to improved results, new services and cost savings. Library consortia, which were initially set up to purchase electronic information, have sprung up everywhere and have extended their activities to different cooperative services.

On 20 July 2004 the Generalitat approved a Government Agreement for the Improvement and Modernization of the Library System of Catalonia in the Period 2004–07. The agreement mentioned the improvements that had been made by libraries since the approval of Law 4/93 on the Library System of Catalonia. It considered the main advances to be the progressive organization of the libraries in networks, the creation of collective instruments (such as the CCUC, the CCLPC and the Digital Library of Catalonia) that form the embryo of national services, the improvement in the facilities and equipment in the networks of public and university libraries and in the Library of Catalonia, and the introduction of electronic information in library services.

It also stated that there were weak points that prevent the library services from having the quality and extension that the citizens of Catalonia need and deserve. The main ones were the insufficiency of library services in some cases (especially in educational establishments), the fact that some libraries lack the support provided by a network and are therefore not connected to the rest of the library infrastructure, and the lack of suitable collective instruments (such as a single catalogue, a general loan system, common policies for contracting and providing free access to electronic information, and a deposit for obsolete books).

The Government Agreement of the Generalitat mentioned the importance of libraries as instruments for guaranteeing democratic and egalitarian access to information for citizens, the need for general access to information, and the need to structure the library system so as to interrelate all the libraries in Catalonia. It set several objectives, one of which, concerning the subject of this article, was to “Coordinate the joint selection and updating of the automated systems managed by public library services in order to foster cooperation and the creation of national services.”


5 And what about automation?

We had left the international panorama of library automation in the late 1980s. The situation then was one of consolidation of the integrated library management systems (ILS) that were marketed by an increasing number of specialized companies operating in an increasingly international market. In the 1990s the use of ILS became widespread, involving the automation of more and more libraries, the total conversion of catalogues and the use of different modules to manage the different library operations and services.

The turn of the century presented some new challenges for libraries, and therefore for the products that provide them with automation services. Perhaps the main change was the new technological panorama arising from the appearance and spread of the Internet, electronic information and new standards. The articles published in the Library Journal under the heading “Automated System Marketplace” on April 1 of each year are an excellent vantage point for studying product development and market trends. Salse40 has also published an article providing an overview of library management systems. We feel that three of the recent trends are clear and decisive.41

Firstly, there has been a concentration of suppliers. Whereas in the 1980s new suppliers were constantly entering the market of library automation systems, in the last three years there has been a clear reduction in their number. During this long period we have seen products and companies appear and disappear as a result of takeovers, and for some years now the main part of the market has been in the hands of 8-10 large companies. The rest tend to supply niche markets (certain types of libraries or certain countries or regions). In 2002, for example, 73% of the sales were made by ten companies. In 2005, this figure had risen to 80%. The recent merger of SIRSI and Dynix has increased the concentration of the market and suggests that this process will continue to some extent in the next three years.

Secondly, the rapid technological changes affecting information and access to it are leading to a change of paradigm. So far library automation has perhaps gone through only three stages: “unintegrated” automation of library operations, integration of library operations, and user orientation (OPACs). The Internet was the first fundamental change, forcing systems to provide access to information from a new environment. At the same time, the information itself was also changing. Until 1995 electronic information consisted of databases that could be accessed remotely or on CD-ROM. Then there began to appear web pages, electronic journals, full-text databases and e-books. There appeared new standards (Open URL), new instruments for describing documents (metadata) and new needs (managing links). The changes were progressively introduced (access to web pages from OPACs, for example) until the products were no longer modified but redesigned from scratch. While the commercial suppliers maintained the traditional “legacy” systems, they were preparing new products: new generation systems designed for a new environment, created with new computer tools and with new features. In the last 3–4 years libraries (automated for some time with ‘legacy’ systems) are migrating to new generation systems. The success of companies consists in their ability to retain their traditional clients during this migration process.

Thirdly, consortia have emerged. These began to be formed in the late 1990s in order to purchase subscriptions to electronic information products, but they have extended their activities to an increasing number of areas of library service. Whereas the 1980s and 1990s were characterized by large-scale inter-library loan systems (OCLC is the paradigmatic example), libraries are currently moving towards proximity management. Why should one look for a book in Berlin with ILL when it may be in a library near to home? Technology (and the decrease in the associated costs) has facilitated the creation of union catalogues (some virtual, i.e. without investment in hardware) and the creation of consortial loan schemes that are more effective and less expensive than the previous ones. In addition, among a high range of products, the features of the main software packages do not differ greatly. It has logically come about that the consortial capacity to buy jointly has been extended to the purchase of software. In addition to adapting to this type of purchase, the producers of automated systems have incorporated consortial management of services in their features.

Meanwhile, what was happening in Catalonia, at least among those large libraries that had automated with the same software package? The program used came to be called VTLS Classic, which ceased to be developed in 1998 and the supplier began to create a new generation product called VIRTUA. With the change of system, the libraries of Catalonia found themselves in a similar situation to the one they faced with CATMARC. Any neutral observer situated at the turn of the century could easily draw the conclusion that, in view of the evolution of automated systems or the so-called national formats, it was necessary to change to a new generation system and to MARC21. The key decision was not whether to change, but when and how to do so. The response of the main Catalan libraries was to change format with the change of system and to do so collectively.

Though it may not be the case with all libraries in Catalonia using VTLS Classic, the CBUC began to discuss the change of system in 1997 and the final decision was taken in 2002. There were two reasons for changing rapidly and two for waiting. The software was no longer being developed and some libraries were running it on obsolete non-UNIX computers. On the other hand, it would be prudent to wait for the new generation systems to reach a level of maturity that would guarantee maximum performance, and the current services were efficient despite the fact that they were based on obsolete technology.

The decision to wait was the right one. If urgency and local needs had governed the decision, the libraries could have begun to migrate to VIRTUA, a newer system that offered features that could not be obtained with VTLS Classic. Again, the libraries of the Consortium, at least, considered that the desire for improvement of the library services required a more extensive analysis of the possibilities on the market. It was therefore decided to start from scratch in order to choose the best product for our needs at that time.


6 A joint call for tenders involving many libraries

In January 2003 the libraries of the CBUC began work on changing the automated system. It was considered that the time was right due to the consolidation of three main tendencies: the software was already clearly independent of hardware and could handle the consortial management of the data, there were a good number of third generation automated systems to choose from, and a new framework of service provision had been defined that affected the management of the electronic information. In 2003 the professional literature was thoroughly monitored, the features of the main systems were studied, the technical requirements began to be drawn up and—most importantly—the objectives of the change were established.

Three key decisions were made. First, the process of migrating from the CATMARC to the MARC21 format was included in the system migration requirements. This may seem to be an obvious decision, but it is not. In a similar situation to that of the Catalan libraries, the university libraries of Finland, decided to migrate first the format and then the system. Secondly, it was considered that the software replacement needs could be met by two groups of programs that operated independently: those that managed the “traditional” library) (OPAC, loans, etc.) and those that managed the digital library (link solver and federated search engine). Thirdly, with the change of system it was also desired to improve the provision of services by changing the hardware. It was considered possible and advisable to concentrate the servers. In order to investigate this option, a study was commissioned42 which confirmed that a common computer environment for the management system of the libraries of the Consortium was viable and would improve performance without involving a loss of service.

All these works led to a better definition of the objectives of the new system, which were established as: to select and buy a new automated system of library management (later known as Lot A of the call for tenders) and to select and buy an automated system for the management of the digital library (later known as Lot B of the call for tenders). Between late 2003 and early 2004 the university libraries also obtained funding for the change of system.

It was at this time that the Agreement of the Generalitat led to a change in the number of libraries participating in the call for tenders. The agreement calling for a coordinated selection of the management systems marked a substantial change. There had been an informal coordination in the 1990s that had led many libraries to use the same system, but the coordination had now been formally established. The libraries involved would be at least the networks of municipal libraries (managed by the Barcelona Provincial Council and the Department of Culture of the Generalitat), the university libraries and the Library of Catalonia. Several options were analyzed in order to achieve the objective laid down by the Government and it was decided that the only one that guaranteed success was a single call for tenders.

Elsewhere43 I have explained the call for tenders in more detail. Here I will merely summarize the most relevant features. The joint call for tenders was carried out through a collaboration agreement between the authorities involved, which authorized the CBUC to organize a public call for tenders for the coordinated contracting of a library management system for the Network of Municipal Libraries of the province of Barcelona. (managed by the Barcelona Provincial Council), the regional networks of Girona, Lleida and Tarragona (coordinated by the Department of Culture of the Generalitat), plus the Library of Catalonia and the university libraries forming part of the CBUC. The agreement was signed on 25 February 2005, with the express aim that coordinated contracting of the system would achieve economies of scale, facilitate the creation of instruments and programs for the whole of Catalonia, and form a powerful group of users that would facilitate implementation and create synergies of innovation in services.

However, it should be noted that the technical requirements did not include highly detailed specifications for each module and part of the software package, as had been common in the 1990s. This was a result of what had been learnt from similar processes that were taken into account (the Madroño Consortium of Madrid, the university libraries of Finland and some consortial processes of selection by libraries in the US) and the recommendations of the professional literature (and several articles in the “Automated System Marketplace” of the Library Journal). These recommendations stated that the market had achieved a considerable degree of maturity that advised against basing a selection process on the past (the known requirements taken mainly from the “legacy” systems) rather than on the possibilities offered by new generation systems.

The call for tenders was held between February and July, and due to its exceptional nature many mechanisms of control and transparency were applied. We have found few (if any) experiences of joint calls for tenders by different authorities, so we have no “jurisprudence” on this. The one in question was drawn up by three firms of legal consultants; the tender board was composed of 17 persons and (as is also habitual in these cases) was assisted by a commission of 17 persons, most of whom were not on the board.

In addition, four advisory groups were set up, all with members of the different institutions and all including librarians and computer experts. As an indication, the selection process directly involved over 60 persons, and 22 technical meetings were held in addition to 11 information sessions with companies. The number of person-hours dedicated to only the formal meetings was 1,906. The result was that Lot A was awarded to the Dynix company (which offered its product Corinthian) and the Lot B to the Greendata company (which offered the products SFX and Metalib of the Ex-Libris company).


7 Library automation: the next five years

In the current situation there are two types of challenge: local ones affecting the libraries that have taken a collective decision (which represent a considerable percentage of the library services in Catalonia) and more general ones affecting the whole library system in Catalonia.

There are two local challenges, both of which have a relatively short time-scale. One will affect the current year and the other will affect mainly 2007. Firstly, the selected programs must be put into operation. We can claim to have experience in the migration of systems (some institutions have carried out at least four!), but the situation is not exactly the same. Today the migrations affect systems that are in full use, dealing with many daily transactions (such as loans) and the work of many people (350 library workers use the CCUC in their daily work). The migration also involves changing from the CATMARC to the MARC21 format: this will offer improvements but involves training a large number of staff, and the two formats will coexist for some time.

The change from the traditional system will be complex and will involve the adaptation of library services and mentalities. In the last few years we have consolidated professional practices and user services based on certain technological features. Almost all of them represented a leap forward in comparison with the former situation, but some are now pointless or could be done better. Our ability to adapt to the new possibilities whilst improving the services and the efficiency with which we provide them remains to be seen.

The other challenge will be that of making full use of the features of the new programs to build a more effective, i.e. more productive management environment. This will necessarily involve reinforcing the collective agreements so that the work of one library may be used by others (and vice-versa). Perhaps the clearest (but not the only) case is the management of the CÀNTIC catalogue of authorities, a project led by the Library of Catalonia that is being developed in a cooperative environment. The importance of using the same headings in the catalogues of different libraries and in the different library applications (catalogues, databases or deposits) has increased with the use of union catalogues and with the possibility of making federated searches on different engines. If we face this challenge as we have done in the past, we will continue to produce low-quality diversified headings. The only solution is that proposed by the Library of Catalonia: to work together. The new management software applied to the CCUC must allow this objective to be met on a far larger scale than it is at present. Other examples could be given for the management of special catalogues (such as old collections), or the difficult but necessary task of “cataloguing” the Internet with the users of our libraries in mind. However, we will deal with this last aspect later.

We feel that the library system of Catalonia is faced with four challenges with regard to automation: to extend it to all the libraries, to automatically catalogue all the printed documents in the collections, to fully incorporate electronic information in the services and to create Catalan regional library services.

We now need a study similar to those made by the Catalan professional association in 1986, by Busquets in 1992, and by Estivill and Miralpeix in 1998, to inform us of the current situation of automation in the libraries of Catalonia. The available figures cover a small but very significant set of libraries: the municipal libraries, the university libraries and the libraries of Catalonia. But what is the situation in the rest? Due to the lack of figures we can only make approximations. The situation could be better and must improve in the next few years. In the last few years the problem has not been a lack of automation but the failure to carry it out effectively. The new study should show (if we are right) that many libraries have been automated but with poor results, i.e. with little effect in services for users, and the manual catalogue cards have yet to be digitized.

How many books are pending automation in Catalonia? Continuing with the approximation, there are probably no more than four million. One million are in the collection of the Library of Catalonia, which has plans to automate it over the next two years. There could be another million in the large number of specialized libraries belonging to institutions, and another two million in the “heritage” collections, most of which are in establishments belonging to the Church. The effects of automation are not apparent unless it is complete—unless all the documents are catalogued and all automatable operations are in operation. The results in this area are far from satisfactory, and we will not make the definitive leap forward if we do not take the steps that libraries in other countries (at a more advanced stage of library development) took in the 1990s.

Electronic information is another challenge that must be faced collectively. Since the Generalitat approved its Strategic Plan for the Information Society and the CBUC created the Digital Library of Catalonia eight years ago, there has been some confusion about what must be done. However, at least in the last five years this has become clear: libraries must contract contents, introduce contents, organize the resources that are accessible in the network and create remote (or virtual) services. At present the problem is not technological but conceptual. The tools (standards and software) are ready and available, and the paths to follow can be deduced from the best experiences and trends in other countries.

Finally, we mentioned the need to create Catalan regional library services. Law 4/93 on the Library System of Catalonia proposed “defining a system that relates the whole library infrastructure [of Catalonia]”. Though progress has been made in some aspects, this has not been done. The technology of the past allowed libraries to organize themselves in networks (of universities, provinces or libraries of the same type); the present-day technology must allow us to organize all libraries and their networks in a compact, coherent system at the service of the users. In Catalonia we are not far from attempting to introduce the Danish model, which defines one coherent library system as a means to ensure universal, personalized, daily access to the information on all kinds of media and also the reinterpretation of the role of libraries and the librarians in the information society and using as a basis a framework law, combined with the action of the Danish National Library Authority (DNLA), which encourage cooperation in all areas, professional development and the creation of new services, including those presented through the national portal of Danish libraries, including the union catalogue and others such as e-reference and subject portals.44

In the information society things are done differently. Libraries can continue to contribute to social progress and improvement, but in order to do so they must also adapt to what people need and find best way to provide the services. Today, any society that wishes to anticipate the future must organize itself on the basis of an ambitious vision: all the information for any citizen. The organization of library and documentation services should not be focused on libraries or documents, but on what led to the birth of libraries in the modern age: the desire to foster and facilitate the use of information with the aim of helping people to better manage their lives.45

Catalonia already has a 25-year history of library automation. It began with the joint action of two universities and a savings bank with the ambitious and modern objective of: “carrying out a project of mechanization of the main libraries of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands in order to create a general catalogue of all the bibliographic news of the region and to distribute it in an accessible format to all the libraries participating in the project”.46

The main institutions supporting libraries have now taken a similar decision to work jointly and with the desire to create instruments of cooperation and collective improvement of services. The 27 years that have gone by between these two decisions (which are as similar in their aim as they are different in their form) have been full of activities and shown considerable results.

The next few years will be a busy period in which, thanks to the efforts of their staff, it does not seem that libraries will be swept aside by progress. If we prove ourselves to be useful and efficient we are faced with thrilling challenges that the new contributions of library automation technology will help us to meet.


Complementary references

Borgman, Christine L. (1997). “From acting locally to thinking globally: a brief history of library automation”. The library quarterly, vol. 67, no. 3, p. 215–249.

Crespo Arce, J. B. (1993). “La informatización de las bibliotecas en la Comunidad Europea: estudio comparativo”. Madrid: Sedic.

Keefer, Alice; Jiménez, Miguel (2003). “Library automation in Spain: an overview”. Program, vol. 26, no. 3, p. 225–237.

Lynch, Clifford (2000). “From automation to transformation: forty years of libraries and Information Technology in higher education”. Educause review, (January-February), p. 60–68. <http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm00/pp060068.pdf>. [Consulted on: 26/02/2006]

Moscoso, Purificación; Extremeño, Ana (2000). “Spain: country report”. Managing information, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 42–53.

Moscoso, Purificación; Malo de Molina, Teresa (1999). “An after automation, what? Spanish libraries an the challenge of modernization”. Journal of librarianship and information science, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 111–119.

Moscoso, Purificación; Ríos García, Yolanda. (1992). “Estado actual de la aplicación de las nuevas tecnologías de la información en las bibliotecas y su impacto sobre el funcionamiento bibliotecario: puesta al día LIB 2/13”. [S. l.]: Fesabid.

Ortiz-Repiso, Virginia; Ríos, Yolanda (1994). “Automated cataloguing and retrospective conversion in the university libraries of Spain”. Online & CDROM review, vol. 18, no. 3, 157–167.

Pace, A. K. (2004). “Dismantling integrated library systems”. Library journal, vol. 129, no. 2, p. 34–36.


Received: 02/03/2006. Accepted: 01/04/2006.




Notes

1 Though all authors agree on this, evidence of earlier experiences is provided by the BIS (Bibliographic Information System) program that came into operation in 1971 at the Arabic Seminari of the University of Barcelona. Vernet Ginés, J.; Guilera Agüera, L., SIB (Barcelona: Laboratorio de Cálculo. Universidad de Barcelona, 197?).

2 Busquets, D. “Automatització de biblioteques: estat de la qüestió a Catalunya”. In: 4es Jornades Catalanes de Documentació: 22, 23 and 24 January 1992 (Barcelona: Col·legi Oficial de Bibliotecaris-Documentalistes de Catalunya, 1992), pp. 169–203, and Estivill, Assumpció; Miralpeix, Concepció, “Estat de l’automatització de les biblioteques a Catalunya”. In: Anuari SOCADI de documentació i informació (Barcelona: SOCADI, 1998), pp. 211–226.

3 Olivella, Lluís, “La informàtica aplicada a les biblioteques: el Centre de Mecanització de Biblioteques (CMBIB)”, Quaderns de l’Obra Social de la Caixa de Pensions per a la Vellesa i d’Estalvis, núm. 5 (1980), p. 4–8.

4 Olivella, Lluís; Álvarez, José Ignacio; Solé Subiela, Juan, [Centre de Mecanització de Biblioteques], extended 2nd ed. (Barcelona: Centro de Cálculo de la Universidad Politécnica de Barcelona, 1979. Working document). Translated from Spanish.

5 Busquets, op. Cit., p. 175, citing a work by J. Ballester of 1991 that I have been unable to locate: Ballester, Josefina, L’expèriencia del CMBIB (Centre de Mecanització de Biblioteques), (Barcelona: Servei de Biblioteques, 1991). Unpublished.

6 Information provided by Josep Sebastià Oms Moliné, Director of the Documentation and Library Centre of the "La Caixa" Foundation, in an e-mail dated 20.01.06.

7 Anglada, Lluís; Cortada, Jordi; Farré, Joan-Baptista, “Procés de selecció d’un sistema per a l’automatització de les biblioteques de la Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya”, Item, nº 6–7 (January–December 1990), p. 43.

8 Cabo, Mercè; Jansà, Enriqueta, “El catàleg automatitzat de la Biblioteca de la Universitat de Barcelona”. In: 2es Jornades Catalanes de Documentació (Barcelona: Col·legi Oficial de Bibliotecaris-Documentalistes de Catalunya, 1986), pp. 1–17. Translated from Catalan.

9 Ibid., p. 4

10 Bonsón, Àngels; Cabo, Mercè; Cambrodí, Carme; Jansà, Enriqueta, “Estat actual del catàleg automatitzat de la biblioteca de la Universitat de Barcelona”. In: 3es Jornades Catalanes de Documentació (Barcelona: Col·legi Oficial de Bibliotecaris-Documentalistes de Catalunya, 1989), p. 55–78.

11 Olivella, Lluís, “Experiencias de automatización de bibliotecas en Cataluña”. In: Seminario de automatización de servicios bibliotecarios (Madrid: [s.n.], October 1982), pp. [141–157].

12 Anglada i Ferrer, Lluís, “L’automatització del Servei de Biblioteques de la Generalitat de Catalunya: realitzacions i projectes”, Butlletí de l’Associació de Bibliotecaris de Catalunya, nº 3 (1983), pp. 43–49. Though it is a detail that history has made irrelevant, note that the ICB appears within the acronym: sICaB.

13 Ballester, Josefina, “El SICAB com a servei nacional de suport bibliotecari a Catalunya”. In: 3es Jornades catalanes de Documentació (Barcelona: Col·legi Oficial de Bibliotecaris-Documentalistes de Catalunya, 1989), p. 143–170.

14 L’automatització dels sistemes bibliotecaris i documentals de Catalunya: situació actual (Barcelona: COBDC, 1986).

15 In fact there were ten, but two belong to UPC and we have included them in the ‘systems’ section.

16 In fact there were ten, but one of them belongs to UPC.

17 The situation in Spain was similar. See: Oliver, Victoria. “Situación actual de la automatización de bibliotecas en España”. In: Seminario de automatización de servicios bibliotecarios (Madrid, [s.n.], October 1982), pp. [158–173] and EEC. Directorate General for Telecommunications, State of the Art of the Application of New Information Technologies in Libraries and their Impact on Library Functions in Spain (Brussels: European Commission, 1988), 151 pp.

18 Busquets, op. cit., p. 175. Translated from Catalan.

19 Curiously, the same issue also includes an in-house experience. See: Ruiz, Carlos; Agenjo, Xavier, “La automatización de la Biblioteca Nacional”, Item, nº 6–7 (January–December 1990), pp. 55–68.

20 Agramunt, Pepa; Permanyer, Jordi; Pi, Núria; Cortés, Antoni, “Aladí o la informatització d’una xarxa de biblioteques: descripció i pautes per a la selecció d’un sistema informàtic”, Item, nº 6–7 (January-December 1990), pp. 9–36.

21 Buxó, M. Francisca, “Biblioteca ESADE: procés d’informatització”, Item, núm. 6–7 (January–December 1990), p. 37–41.

22 Anglada-Cortada-Farré, op. cit., p. 43–54.

23 Buxó, op. cit., p. 38.

24 Ibid., p. 38. Translated from Catalan.

25 “... though [ad hoc systems] were initially more affordable, in the medium and long term they bear no comparison with commercial systems in the features they offer and the resources devoted to their development”, Conclusions of EEC. Directorate General for Telecommunications, State of the Art of the Application of New Information Technologies in Libraries and their Impact on Library Functions in Spain (Brussels: European Commission, 1988), 151 p. 118.

26 Anglada-Cortada-Farré, op. cit., p. 44. Translated from Catalan. See also the footnote referring to North American professional literature.

27 Walton, Robert A.; Bridge, Frank R., “Automated system marketplace 1988: focused on fulfilling commitments”, Library journal (April 1, 1989), p. 41–52.

28 Ibid., p. 41.

29 Blunden-Ellis, John, “A UK market survey of library automation system vendors: January 1989 – January 1990”, Program, vol. 25 (April 1991), nº. 2, p. 133–149.

30 Anglada i de Ferrer, Lluís, Recomanacions per a la tria d’un sistema automatitzat per a la gestió de la Xarxa de Biblioteques Populars de la Diputació de Barcelona (Barcelona, January 1987). Cited with the permission of the Network.

31 The same reason is put forward for the Spanish case in the study by the EEC. Directorate General of Telecomunicaciones. Op. cit, p. 42.

32 Anglada, Lluís, El format MARC i l’intercanvi d’informació bibliogràfica a Catalunya (Barcelona: Escola Universitària de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 1988), note 13, p. 35.

33 Anglada-Cortada-Farré, op. cit., p. 51.

34 Estivill, Assumpció; Miralpeix, Concepció, Op. cit., pp. 211-226. Translated from Catalan.

35 Anglada, Lluís M., (1999) “Working together, learning together: the Consortium of Academic Libraries of Catalonia”, Information technology and libraries, Vol. 18 (1999) nº 3, pp. 139–144.

36 According to the 2004 report of the CBUC, 150 physical libraries were incorporated in the CCUC and 67 of every 100 documents were catalogued by copying.

37 Estivill Rius, Assumpció, “Automation of university libraries in Spain: a status report”. In: Telephassa Seminar on Innovative Information Services and Information Handling: proceedings (Tilburg: Tilburg University Library, 1992), pp. 91–122.

38 Assumpció Estivill, Concepció Miralpeix. Op. cit.

39 See, for example: Perceptions of libraries and information resources (Dublin (Ohio): OCLC, 2005).

40 Salse Rovira, Marina, “Panoràmica dels sistemes de gestió de biblioteques al segle XXI”, BiD, nº 15 (December 2005), http://bid.ub.edu/15salse.htm. [Consulted on: 22/02/06].

41 Our comments are based on the “Automated System Marketplace” articles of the Library Journal that came out between 2001 and 2005. Barry, J., “Closing in on content”, Library journal, vol. 126, núm. 6 (2001), p. 46–58; Breeding, M., “Capturing the migrating costumer: automated system marketplace 2002”, Library journal, vol. 127, no. 6 (2002), p. 48–54; Breeding, M.; Roddy, C., “The competition heats up: automated system marketplace 2003”, Library journal, vol. 128, no. 6 (2003), p. 52–64; Breeding, M., “Migration down innovation up: automated system marketplace 2004”, Library journal, vol. 129, no. 6 (2004), p. 46–56; Breeding, M., “Gradual evolution: automated system marketplace, 2005”, Library journal, vol. 130, no. 6 (2005), p. 42–56.

42 Peña, M., “Anàlisi de viabilitat d’un entorn informàtic comú per al nou sistema de gestió de les biblioteques universitàries”, RECERCAT, (2004), http://www.recercat.net/handle/2072/48. [Consulted on: 22/02/06].

43 Anglada i de Ferrer, Lluís; Comellas Gaya, Núria; Ros Gorné, Ramon; Tort Pascual, Marta, “El procés de selecció de programaris de gestió per a les biblioteques universitàries i públiques de Catalunya i per a la Biblioteca de Catalunya”. In: Jornades Catalanes de Documentació (Barcelona, 2006).

44 We cite the Catalan translation of the text by Thorhauge, Jens, “The Personal Library: Integrating the Library in the Networking Society”, Traduccions del CBUC, nº 18 (May 2004). This text was originally published in: Thorhauge, Jens, "Emerging visions for access in the 21st century library". In: CLIR Conference proceedings, (April 21-22, 2003). http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub119/thorhauge.html. [Consulted on: 22/02/06].

45 I wish this sentence were entirely mine, but I must admit that I have paraphrased J. Thorhauge, op. cit.

46 Olivella, L.; Álvarez, J.I.; Solé Subiela, J., [Centre de Mecanització de Biblioteques], extended 2nd ed., (Barcelona: Centro de Cálculo de la Universidad Politécnica de Barcelona, 1979). Unpublished. Translated from Spanish.