Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Vol. 12, pp. 159-161, 1988 03644408188 $3.00 + .OO Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1988 Pergamon Press plc

CHARLESTON CONFERENCE 1987

PLAYERS IN THE KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER ENTERPRISE

RICHARD ABEL

Timber Press

9999 Southwest Wilshire

Portland, OR 97225

In my earlier remarks I strongly urged that the key players in the knowledge transfer enter- prise must draw together to solve several major problems which are to a greater or lesser degree eroding the purpose of those central and critical cultural artifacts: publications and libraries. If such an alliance is to be realized and be firmly founded, the limitations of each player must be fully and clearly taken into account.

So I would like to first review the several factors which generally limit the collective free- dom of action of all three players.

1. The first and most obvious is the general economic health and vitality of the society. This is such an obvious and major element in the shaping of our cultural future that I almost hesitated to draw attention to it. I ultimately concluded that I should, for a snobbish few in the world of knowledge persist in advancing as an article of faith that intellectual life can prosper when society as a whole is not prosperous.

2. A second obvious general factor, but one which is hard to put one’s finger on, is the openness to or willingness of most society members to participate in the cultural and intellectual life of the society. The last several decades have clearly been extraordinar- ily turbulent and therefore enormously difficult to assess. We have those who warn of an advancing tide of barbarism. Others speak of neo-Luddites.

On the other side of the coin, we are living in a time marked by a quite remarkable efflorescence of cultural and intellectual activity. How these conflicting present trends will shape our future is clearly a matter of concern, for our capacity to move in direc- tions we as book people think wise will in a significant measure be bounded by the will- ingness of numerous special interest groups to lay aside their pet bone or pastime and reenter the mainstream of the society.

3. The third commonly shared constraint derives from the nature of organizations. Library and supplier managements are loath to enter into commitments or make the hard deci- sions about staffing and budget reallocations which new systems and different ways of doing things entail.

159

160 R. ABEL

Let us turn now to some of the base realities affecting each of the player’s_librarians, ven- dors, and publishers-ability to draw together in rationalizing the world of printed materials.

1. The librarian’s freedom to cooperate is constrained in two significant ways-both deriv- ing from their institutional setting: a. The first and most obvious is financial constraint-not only that of budgets and their

variations from one year to the next but also in line item strictures, the kinds of things on which money can be spent. Librarians have only marginal control of these matters.

b. The second and more subtle form of constraint is the demands and expectations of other segments of the institution-the higher administration levels, faculty or research personnel, students or patrons.

I can recall countless occasions when we offered a program for rationalizing even sim- ple, rather insignificant routines and which the librarians involved fully supported but which were in the end rejected due to pressure from another segment of the institution. In short, libraries are constrained in committing to long range goals of rationalization by institutional pressures - financial and structural.

2. Vendors and publishers share some constraints by virtue of the fact that they live in a common, for-profit world which seems increasingly governed by such externally dictated measurements or factors as: a. Interest rates set by banks on money borrowed to support inventory and accounts

receivable; b. Return on investment set by shareholders or financial officers in the case of con-

glomerates, or banks in connection with borrowings; c. Cash flow dictated, if not by financial officers or banks, then surely by publishers.

Let me dwell on this point one moment longer. Library vendors’ cash flow and hence publishers’ is very much controlled by the business offices of the institutions of which the library is a part. Business offices can, when trying to cope with institutional cash flow problems, quite literally devastate vendors by stretching out payments.

d. Lastly, taxes of various kinds. 3. Library vendors have, in addition, some particular constraints on their ability to com-

mit to long range programs. a. Possibly the most problematic is the ebb and flow of volume of business due to:

I. seasonal cycles-all of the world’s library suppliers dread the summer months and Christmas vacation time when both orders and payments fall to dismal levels,

II. fluctuations in library budgets and budget allocations between materials from one year to the next,

III. the loss of business due to libraries’ switching of business to other vendors. Season-to-season and year-to-year variations conspire to create a sense of uncertainty which erodes the confidence required to commit to multi-year programs oriented to long-term rationalization.

b. Vendors’ margins are under unrelenting pressure by both publishers and libraries. As the most distinctly middle group in the information transfer process, they are squeezed by both their suppliers and their customers. So although these pressures are advantageous from the narrow perspective of an individual publisher or a particu- lar library, vendor’s uncertain and always marginal profits constrain the commitment vendors can make to the search for genuine long-term solutions.

Players in the Knowledge Transfer Enterprise 161

4. In addition to the constraints shared with library vendors, publishers have other con- siderations limiting commitment. a. The most significant factor is that libraries are but a fraction of the market the typical

publisher must find for any particular title. In the case of my present company, Tim- ber Press, libraries represent about 22% of our sales. While I have a profound in- terest in libraries, and am fully aware of the central importance of the bibliographic control which the library community has developed in the resolution of some of the ills which beset the world of publications, few publishers I believe share this sense. Most publishers are oriented to the perceived needs of reaching other and less cer- tain markets-markets which require more cultivation because books are competing with other products for the consumer dollar.

b. Secondly, the view that libraries reduce the sale of books has still not died. So to sum up, publishers as a group are not oriented to committing in a substantial way to the solution of these problems.

This all sounds pretty dismal doesn’t it? Is there any hope? I submit that there is and that for two reasons:

1. Someone else will force rationalization if we don’t. A society cannot tolerate so central and vital a function as knowledge transfer to become prohibitively expensive or user unfriendly.

The support which has been given to efforts to resolve these problems by various gov- ernmental and foundation entities should be seen in part as warning and in part as encouragement to the players to reach solutions among themselves.

2. The people who gravitate to the world of knowledge are on dead average in my opin- ion somewhat more motivated by and committed to the success of their common ven- ture than in most other professions. Being a group with a somewhat higher level of goodwill, I believe the opportunity to draw together to solve matters of such moment is enhanced.

I submit that despite the awesome nature of the task and the divided interests of the players, the crucial problems incident to the knowledge transfer process can be successfully resolved.