Collection Management in the Digital Age: Libraries at a Crossroads

Introduction

Horava (2010) begins his study by asking, "What is collection management in the digital age?" (p. 142). The question is important because digital technology has disrupted so many sectors and changed the way all organizations conduct business. Assessing the impact of this technology on library science and, in particular, on collection management is a way to better maintain a grasp on current environments, community expectations, and organizational possibilities. What the researcher finds is that the digital age has transformed the way in which scholarly communications are shared, the manner in which information technology is utilized in collection practices, and has expanded options regarding information-seeking for library patrons thanks to the rise of the Internet as a mega-database.

Driving Forces of Collection Management

The study notes that one of the driving forces of earlier collection management practices was "pride and prestige" — that is, libraries competed with one another to have prized collections of highly sought-after materials (Horava, 2010, p. 143). Today, however, prestige has been somewhat neutralized by the great equalizer that is the Internet: in the digital age, virtually everyone has access to the same materials that can be shared from any place in the world. Users upload previously hard-to-find information and make it available at the click of a button. Clearly, this ease of access affects how collections are managed in libraries, and while "quality and quantity were interwoven values" for collections managers, the same cannot be said to be entirely the case in today's digital age (Horava, 2010, p. 143).

One way that libraries are changing their collection management practices is through the development and implementation of resource-sharing networks, the focusing of attention on the collection of digital materials that educators and students can use, and the provision of free digital media resources to patrons for lending (Horava, 2010). The main issues related to these changes are the age-old concerns of funding, time, and energy: change takes time, energy, and money to effect. Libraries cannot achieve all their goals regarding collections in the digital era at once, and so must proceed gradually with an eye both to budgeting and to how technology is evolving and what expectations patrons have going forward.

Core Values and the Digital Transition

Horava (2010) discusses some of the core values pertinent to collection management and identifies them as "equity of access, intellectual freedom, open access, stewardship, and trustworthiness" (p. 144). How these values are affected by the digital era's changes in technology and communication is what the bulk of the study addresses. The values are defined in detail and described as essential aspects of library science. As Johnson (2009) notes, part of collection management efficacy is efficient collection analysis, which "encompasses analysis of the library's collection, its use, and ultimately its impact" (p. 225). This same sense of collection management is described by Horava (2010) in terms of ensuring that the core values of the library are upheld and secured even through transitional phases such as those currently affecting libraries as they adapt to the digital era.

The challenge facing collections managers now is that collections no longer need to be entirely tangible, as they were in earlier eras. New media has swiftly displaced old media in the minds of younger generations, and there is no discernible sign that old media will make a comeback. The digital era has so completely altered how knowledge and information are transferred that most young people now utilize computers and the Internet as their primary sources of information. Does this mean that the core values of collection management — and by extension library science — must change? Horava (2010) suggests that the principles of the selection process — "such as authority, originality, impact, timeliness, breadth and depth of coverage, and demand . . . must be expanded to encompass new forms of scholarly communication and publishing" (p. 146). The issue of author rights and copyright permission is also a subject that must be addressed, as digital files can easily be copied and shared. Traditional boundaries of ownership are no longer as clear as they once were. What Horava (2010) identifies as essential to the maintenance of collections is a web-based presence that supports "new capabilities to connect and be relevant to the population" (p. 149).

Steps to ensure that library collections remain relevant should be centered on immediacy, since information spreads so easily and quickly in today's digital era. Having immediate access to new — and indeed to all — information is essential to ensuring the relevancy of library collections in the future (Horava, 2010). This means that library resources should be both web-based and accessible via numerous devices such as smartphones, tablets, laptops, and computers. Some of the issues that library collections managers will have to address include: "How to finance, license, and deliver information resources in multiple formats and delivery options" (Horava, 2010, p. 149). Acknowledging that public libraries are now in competition with information providers like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft is something that managers must do — ignoring this fact will not help library information services. In short, libraries must be able to provide patrons with something that the big information providers cannot. This is the central challenge facing collections managers and library information services in general: without relevance in the digital era, libraries will not survive.

Conclusion and Critical Evaluation

The article's relevance for collection development librarianship lies in its guidance for libraries facing the rise of the digital era and web-based technology. The new generation is accustomed to obtaining information via web-based devices such as smartphones, tablets, and computers. Libraries must address this issue as well as the fact that information services such as Google, Amazon, and other web-based platforms are offering users the same type of portal access to data that libraries once commanded with their tangible information services. Because so much information is now obtainable for free over the Web, libraries must rethink their position in society and how they can distinguish themselves from the information providers that currently dominate the Internet. What libraries can do to address these issues is to focus on immediacy — that is, how they can help patrons obtain information directly and quickly — and also to focus on how to integrate a number of media and channels into their collections and information services so as to remain relevant in a society increasingly oriented toward obtaining data through the Web.

My own view of the article is that it offers a solid background history on the role that library collections have played in the past and the core values that made these collections important in society. However, with the rise of the digital era, it is evident that values are shifting and that what society valued prior to the digital era is not what is being valued today. Technology has allowed people to find information more quickly and efficiently than ever before. Moreover, information is now stored on databases and shared directly with peers all over the world. The power and prestige that libraries once held is becoming almost antiquated as a result. Just as Amazon and Netflix have changed the way retail and video are consumed, the Web itself has changed the way information is sought. What role libraries can play in such an environment is a question that must be answered. This is the main point of the article, and where it falls short is that it offers little insight into how libraries can effectively meet the challenges that other information providers are putting forward. A SWOT analysis of a library might be very revealing at this point, and a study that takes such a business-oriented approach to library science while dealing with these same issues would be a welcome contribution to the field.

The study by Horava (2010) does an effective job of raising the necessary concerns, but its solutions are relatively vague and weak considering the seemingly formidable obstacles that libraries now face regarding information services. The upcoming generation is extremely tech-savvy, and while libraries today may continue to find patronage among older persons who are less comfortable with technology, their utility may quickly diminish once older generations are replaced by newer ones, who are more autonomous and independent in their information-seeking. Appealing to this new generation will be crucial, and libraries will somehow have to adjust — or else risk becoming obsolete. Horava (2010) recommends that librarians expand their skills and services, but this is somewhat analogous to telling Blockbuster or Macy's to do the same after competitors have already cornered the market on new services and effectively taken away those businesses' user base. Does the same fate await public libraries? Will they be able to maintain some relevance in the 21st century? What will they offer to the public that the Internet cannot already provide? How will librarians set themselves apart from tools like voice-activated search assistants? What can library information services and providers do to overcome these challenges? Some creative thinking is definitely needed at this point.

References

Horava, T. (2010). Challenges and possibilities for collection management in a digital age. LRTS, 54(3), 142–152.

Johnson, P. (2014). Fundamentals of collection development and management. Chicago: American Library Association.